r ^ 

LIBRARY 

UNIVERSiTY  OF 
CALIFORNI^ 

SAN  DIEQO 

V ; — / 


/s^ 


K<j^rf^<^ 


Digitized  by  tine  Internet  Arciiive 

in  2007  witii  funding  from 

IVIicrosoft  Corporation 


http://www.archive.org/details/anarchismcriticiOOzenkiala 


ANARCHISM 

A  CRITICISM  AND  HISTORY 

OF  THE  ANARCHIST 

THEORY 


BY 

E.  V.  ZENKER 


G.  P.  PUTNAM'S   SONS 
NEW  YORK  AND  LONDON 

V^bc  finicherbocftec  press 
1897 


Copyright,  1897 

BY 

G.  P.  PUTNAM'S  SONS 


TPbe  ftnicfcecboclsei:  press,  "new  fiocft 


PREFACE 


N  the  day  of  the  bomb  outrage  in  the 
French  Parliament  I  gave  an  impromptu 
discourse  upon  Anarchism  to  an  intelli- 
gent audience  anxious  to  know  more 
about  it,  touching  upon  its  intellectual 
ancestry,  its  doctrines,  propaganda,  the  lines  of  demarca- 
tion that  separate  it  from  Socialism  and  Radicalism, 
and  so  forth.  The  impression  which  my  explanations 
of  it  made  upon  my  audience  was  at  the  same  time  flat- 
tering and  yet  painful  to  me.  I  felt  almost  ashamed 
that  I  had  told  these  men,  who  represented  the  pick  of 
the  middle-class  political  electorate,  something  entirely 
new  to  them  in  speaking  of  matters  which,  considering 
their  reality  and  the  importance  of  the  question,  ought 
to  be  familiar  to  every  citizen.  Having  thus  had  my 
attention  drawn  to  this  lacuna  in  the  public  mind,  I  was 
induced  to  make  a  survey  of  the  most  diverse  circles  of 
the  political  and  Socialist  world,  both  of  readers  and 
writers,  and  the  result  was  the  resolve  to  extend  my  pre- 
vious  studies  of  Anarchism  (which  had  not  extended 


iv  Preface 

much  beyond  the  earliest  theorists),  and  to  develop  my 
lecture  into  a  book.  This  book  I  now  present  to  my 
readers. 

The  accomplishment  of  my  resolve  has  been  far  from 
easy.  What  little  literature  exists  upon  the  subject  of 
Anarchism  is  almost  exclusively  hostile  to  it,  which  is  a 
great  drawback  for  one  who  is  seeking  not  the  objects  of 
a  partisan,  but  simply  and  solely  the  truth.  One  had 
constantly  to  gaze,  so  to  speak,  through  a  forest  of  pre- 
judices and  errors  in  order  to  discover  the  truth  like  a 
little  spot  of  blue  sky  above.  In  this  respect  I  found 
it  mattered  little  whether  I  applied  to  the  press,  or  to  the 
so-called  scientific  Socialists,  or  to  fluent  pamphleteers. 

"  In  vielen  Worten  wenig  Klarheit, 
Ein  Funkchen  Witz  und  keine  Wahrheit."  ' 

Laveleye,  for  instance,  does  not  even  know  of  Proudhon ; 
for  him  Bakunin  is  the  only  representative  of  Anarchism 
and  the  most  characteristic  ;  Socialism,  Nihilism,  and 
Anarchism  mingle  together  in  wild  confusion  in  the  mind 
of  this  social  historian.  Garin,  who  wrote  a  big  book, 
entitled  The  Anarchists^  is  not  acquainted  with  a  single 
Anarchist  author,  except  some  youthful  writings  of 
Proudhon's  and  a  few  agitationist  placards  and  mani- 
festoes of  the  modern  period.  The  result  of  this  ignor- 
ance is  that  he  identifies  Anarchism  completely  with 
Collectivism,  and  carries  his  ridiculous  ignorance  so  far 
as  to  connect  the  former  Austrian  minister  Schaffle,  who 
'  Many  words,  but  little  light ;  a  spark  of  wit,  but  no  truth. 


Preface  v 

was  then  the  chief  adviser  of  Count  Hohenwart,  in  some 
way  or  other  with  the  Anarchists.  Professor  Enrico 
Ferri,  again,  exposes  his  complete  ignorance  of  the 
question  at  issue  sufficiently  by  branding  Herbert  Spen- 
cer as  an  Anarchist.  In  fact,  the  only  work  that  can  be 
called  scientifically  useful  is  the  short  article  on  "Anarch- 
ism ' '  in  the  Cyclopcedia  of  Political  Science,  from  the  pen 
of  Professor  George  Adler,  All  pamphlets,  articles,  and 
essays  which  have  since  appeared  on  the  same  subject 
are,  conveniently  but  uncritically,  founded  upon  this 
short  but  excellent  essay  of  Adler' s.  Since  the  extra- 
ordinary danger  of  Anarchist  doctrines  is  firmly  fixed  as 
a  dogma  in  the  minds  of  the  vast  majority  of  mankind, 
it  is  apparently  quite  unnecessary  to  obtain  any  informa- 
tion about  its  real  character  in  order  to  pronounce  a 
decided,  and  often  a  decisive,  judgment  upon  it.  And 
so  almost  all  who  have  hitherto  written  upon  or  against 
Anarchism,  with  a  few  very  rare  exceptions,  have  prob- 
ably never  read  an  Anarchist  publication,  even  cursorily, 
but  have  contented  themselves  with  certain  traditional 
catchwords. 

As  a  contrast  to  this,  it  was  necessary,  for  the  purposes 
of  a  critical  work  upon  Anarchism,  to  go  right  back  to 
its  sources  and  to  the  writings  of  those  who  represented 
it.  But  here  I  found  a  further  difficulty,  which  could  not 
always  be  overcome.  Where  was  I  to  get  these  writ- 
ings ?  Our  great  public  libraries,  whose  pride  it  is  to 
possess  the  most  complete  collections  possible  of  all  the 
texts  of  Herodotus  or  Sophocles,  have  of  course  thought 


vi  Preface 

it  beneath  their  dignity  to  place  on  their  shelves  the 
works  of  Anarchist  doctrinaires,  or  even  to  collect  the 
pamphlet  literature  for  or  against  Anarchism — produc- 
tions which  certainly  cannot  take  a  very  high  rank  from 
the  point  of  view  either  of  literature  or  of  fact.  The 
consequence  of  this  foresight  on  the  part  of  our  librari- 
ans is  that,  to-day,  anyone  who  inquires  into  the  de- 
velopment of  the  social  question  in  these  great  libraries 
devoted  to  science  and  public  study  has  nothing  to  find, 
and  therefore  nothing  to  seek,  I  have  thus  been  com- 
pelled to  procure  the  materials  I  wanted  partly  through 
the  kindness  of  friends  and  acquaintances,  and  partly 
by  purchase  of  books — often  at  considerable  expense, — 
but  always  by  roundabout  means  and  with  great  diffi- 
culty. And  here  I  should  like  specially  to  emphasise 
the  fact  that  it  was  the  literary  representatives  of  An- 
archism themselves  who,  although  I  never  concealed  my 
hostility  to  Anarchism,  placed  their  writings  at  my  dis- 
posal in  the  kindest  and  most  liberal  manner;  and  for 
this  I  hereby  beg  to  offer  them  my  heartiest  thanks,  and 
most  of  all  Professor  Elisee  Reclus,  of  Brussels. 

But  if  I  thus  enter  into  details  of  the  difficulties  which 
met  me  in  writing  the  present  book,  it  is  not  with  the 
object  of  surrounding  myself  with  the  halo  of  a  pioneer. 
I  only  wish  to  lay  my  hand  on  a  sore  which  has  no 
doubt  troubled  other  authors  also  ;  and,  at  the  same 
time,  to  explain  to  my  critics  the  reason  why  there  are 
still  so  many  lacunce  in  this  work.  I  have,  for  instance, 
been  quite  unable  to  procure  any  book  or  essay  by 


Preface  vii 

Tucker,  or  a  copy  of  his  journal  Liberty,  although  several 
booksellers  did  their  best  to  help  me,  and  although  I 
applied  personally  to  Mr.  Tucker  at  Boston.  It  was  all 
in  vain.  Ut  aliquid  fecisse  vtdeatur,  I  ordered  from 
Chicago  M.  J.  Schaack's  book.  Anarchy  and  Anarchists, 
a  History  of  the  Red  Terror  and  the  Social  Revolution  in 
America  and  Europe :  Communism,  Socialism,  and  Nihil- 
ism, in  Doctrine  and  in  Deed.  After  waiting  four 
months,  and  repeatedly  urging  things  on,  I  at  last  re- 
ceived it,  and  soon  perceived  that  I  had  merely  bought 
a  pretty  picture  book  for  my  library  for  my  five  dollars. 
The  book  contains,  in  spite  of  its  grandiloquent  title,  its 
six  hundred  and  ninety-eight  large  octavo  pages,  and  its 
"  numerous  illustrations  from  authentic  photographs  and 
from  original  drawings,"  not  a  single  word  about  the 
doctrine  of  Anarchism  in  general,  or  American  Anarch- 
ism in  particular.  The  author,  a  police  official,  takes 
up  a  standpoint  which  is  certainly  quite  explicable  in 
one  of  his  position,  but  which  is  hardly  suitable  for  a 
social  historian.  To  him  "  all  Socialists  are  Anarchists 
as  a  first  step,  although  all  Anarchists  are  not  precisely 
Socialists  "  (see  page  22),  — which  is  certainly  praise- 
worthy moderation  in  a  police  officer.  He  calls  Ferdi- 
nand Lassalle  "  the  father  of  German  Anarchism  as  it 
exists  to-day  "  (page  23);  on  the  other  hand  he  has  no 
knowledge  of  Tucker  (of  Boston),  the  most  prominent 
exponent  of  theoretical  Anarchism  in  America.  This, 
then,  was  the  literature  which  was  at  my  disposal. 
As  regards  the  standpoint  which  I  have  taken  in  this 


vili  Preface 

book  upon  questions  of  fact,  it  is  strictly  the  coldly  obser- 
vant and  critical  attitude  of  science  and  no  other.  I  was 
not  concerned  to  write  either  for  or  against  Anarchism, 
but  only  to  -tell  the  great  mass  of  the  people  that  con- 
cerns itself  with  public  occurrences  for  the  first  time 
what  Anarchism  really  is,  and  what  it  wishes  to  do,  and 
whether  Anarchist  views  are  capable  of  discussion  like 
other  opinions.  The  condemnation  of  Anarchism, 
which  becomes  necessary  in  doing  this,  proceeds  exclus- 
ively from  the  exercise  of  scientific  criticism,  and  has 
nothing  to  do  with  any  partisan  judgment,  be  it  what  it 
may.  It  would  be  a  contradiction  to  adopt  a  partisan 
attitude  at  the  very  time  when  one  is  trying  to  remind 
public  opinion  of  a  duty  which  has  been  forgotten  in  the 
heat  of  party  conflict. 

But  I  do  not  for  a  moment  allow  myself  to  be  deluded 
into  thinking  that,  with  all  my  endeavours  to  be  just  to 
all,  I  have  succeeded  in  doing  justice  to  all.  Elisee 
Reclus  wrote  to  me,  when  I  informed  him  of  my  inten- 
tion to  write  the  present  book,  and  of  my  opinion  of 
Anarchism,  that  he  wished  me  well,  but  doubted  the 
success  of  my  work,  for  (he  said)  on  ne  comprend  rien 
que  ce  gu'  on  avne.  Of  this  remark  I  have  always  had  a 
keen  recollection.  If  that  great  savant  and  gentle 
being,  the  St.  John  of  the  Anarchists,  thinks  thus,  what 
shall  I  have  to  expect  from  his  passionate  fellow-disciples, 
or  from  the  terror-blinded  opponents  of  Anarchism  ? 
"  We  cannot  understand  what  we  do  not  love,"  and  un- 
fortunately we  do  not  love  unvarnished  truth.     Anarch- 


Preface  ix 

ists  will,  therefore,  simply  deny  my  capacity  to  write 
about  their  cause,  and  call  my  book  terribly  reactionary; 
Socialists  will  think  me  too  much  of  a  "  Manchester 
Economist  "  ;  Liberals  will  think  me  far  too  tolerant 
towards  the  Socialistic  disturbers  of  their  peace;  and 
Reactionaries  will  roundly  denounce  me  as  an  Anarchist 
in  disguise.  But  this  will  not  dissuade  me  from  my 
course,  and  I  shall  be  amply  compensated  for  these 
criticisms  which  I  have  foreseen  by  the  knowledge  of 
having  advanced  real  and  serious  discussion  on  this 
subject.  For  only  when  we  have  ceased  to  thrust  aside 
the  theory  of  Anarchism  as  madness  from  the  first,  only 
when  we  have  perceived  that  one  can  and  must  under- 
stand many  things  that  we  certainly  cannot  like,  only 
then  will  Anarchists  also  place  themselves  on  a  closer 
human  footing  with  us,  and  learn  to  love  us  as  men  even 
though  they  often  perhaps  cannot  understand  us,  and  of 
their  own  accord  abandon  their  worst  argument,  the 
bomb. 

E.  V,  Zenker, 


CONTENTS. 
Part  I. — Early  Anarchism. 

PAGE 

Preface         v 

CHAP. 

I.  Precursors  and  Early  History    ....       3 
Forerunners  and  Early  History — Definitions — Is  Anarch- 
ism a  Pathological  Phenomenon? — Anarchism  Considered 
Sociologically — Anarchist  Movements  in  the  Middle  Ages 

— The  Theory  of  the  Social  Contract  with  Reference  to 
Anarchism  —  Anarchist  Movements  during  the  French 
Revolution — The  Philosophic  Premises  of  the  Anarchist 
Theory — The  Political  and  Economic  Assumptions  of 
Anarchism. 

II.  Pierre  Joseph  Proudhon 32 

Biography  —  His  Philosophic  Standpoint  —  His  Early 
Writings — The  "Contradictions  of  Political  Economy" — 
Proudhon's  Federation — His  Economic  Views — His 
Theory  of  Property — Collectivism  and  Mutualism — At- 
tempts to  Put  his  Views  into  Practice — Proudhon's  Last 
Writin  gs — Criticism. 

III.  Max  Stirner  and  the  German  Proudhonists  .  100 
Germany  in  1830-40  and  France— Stirner  and  Proudhon 
— Biography  of  Stirner —  7"^!?  Individual  and  his  Property 
{^Der  Einzige  und  sein  Eigenthum) — The  Union  of  Ego- 
ists— The  Philosophic  Contradiction  of  the  Einziger — 
Stimer's  Practical  Error— Julius  Faucher — Moses  Hess — 
Karl  GrUn— Wilhelm  Marr. 


xii  Contents 

Part  II.— Modern  Anarchism. 

CHAP.  PAGE 

IV,     Russian  Influences  .        .        .        ,        .        .141 

The  Earliest  Signs  of  Anarchist  Views  in  Russia  in  1848 
— The  Political,  Economic,  Mental,  and  Social  Circum- 
stances of  Anarchism  in  Russia — Michael  Bakunin — Biog- 
raphy— Bakunin's  Anarchism — Its  Philosophic  Found- 
ations— Bakunin's  Economic  Programme — His  Views  as 
to  the  Practicability  of  his  Plans — Sergei  Netschajew — 
The  Revolutionary  Catechism — The  Propaganda  of  Action 
— Paul  Brousse. 

V.  Peter  Kropotkin  and  his  School  ....  172 
Biography — Kropotkin's  Main  Views — Anarchist  Com- 
munism and  the  "  Economics  of  the  Heap"  (^Tas) — Kro- 
potkin's Relation  to  the  Propaganda  of  Action — Elisee 
Reclus :  his  Character  and  Anarchist  Writings — Jean 
Grave — Daniel  Saurin's  Order  through  Anarchy — Louise 
Michel  and  G.  Elievant — A.  Hamon  and  the  Psycho- 
logy of  Anarchism — Charles  Malato  and  other  French 
Writers  on  Anarchist  Communism — The  Italians:  Cafiero, 
Merlino,  and  Malatesta. 

VI.  Germany,  England,  and  America  .  .  .  .213 
Individualist  and  Communist  Anarchism — Arthur  Mlilber- 
ger — Theodor  Hertzka's  Freeland  — Eugen  Diihring's 
"  Anticratism  " — Moritz  von  Egidy's  "  United  Christen- 
dom " — John  Henry  Mackay — Nietzsche  and  Anarchism — 
Johann  Most — Auberon  Herbert's  Voluntary  State — R. 
B.  Tucker. 

Part  III.— The  Relation  of  Anarchism 
TO  Science  and  Politics. 

VII.    Anarchism  and  Sociology  :  Herbert  Spencer       .     245 
Spencer's  Views  on  the  Organisation  of  Society — Society 
Conceived  from  the  Nominalist  and  Realist  Standpoint — 
The    Idealism    of  Anarchists — Spencer's  Work :    Frotn 
Freedom  to  Restraint. 


Contents 


Xlll 


CHAP, 
VIII 


The  Spread  of  Anarchism  in  Europe  . 
First  Period  (1867-1880)  :  The  Peace  and  Freedom 
League — The  Democratic  Alliance  and  the  Jurassic  Bund 
— Union  with  and  Separation  from  the  "International" 
— The  Rising  at  Lyons — Congress  at  Lausanne — The 
Members  of  the  Alliance  in  Italy,  Spain,  and  Belgium — 
Second  Period  (from  1880) :  The  German  Socialist  Law — 
Johann  Most — The  London  Congress — French  Anarch- 
ism since  1880 — Anarchism  in  Switzerland — The  Geneva 
Congress — Anarchism  in  Germany  and  Austria — Joseph 
Penkert — Anarchism  in  Belgium  and  England — Organisa- 
tion of  the  Spanish  Anarchists — Italy — Character  of  Mod- 
ern Anarchism — The  Group — Numerical  Strength  of  the 
Anarchism  of  Action. 

IX.    Concluding  Remarks 

Legislation  against  Anarchists — Anarchism  and  Crime — 
Tolerance  towards  Anarchist  Theory — Suppression  of  An- 
archist Crime — Conclusion. 


PAGE 

260 


304 


PART   I 

EARLY  ANARCHISM 


"  A  hundred  fanatics  are  found  to  support  a  theological  or  meta- 
physical statement,  but  not  one  for  a  geometric  theorem." 

Cesare  Lombroso. 


CHAPTER  I 

PRECURSORS  AND   EARLY   HISTORY 

Forerunners  and  Early  History  Definitions — Is  Anarchism  a  Patho- 
logical Phenomenon  ? — Anarchism  Considered  Sociologically — 
Anarchist  Movements  in  the  Middle  Ages — The  Theory  of  the 
Social  Contract  with  Reference  to  Anarchism — Anarchist  Move- 
ments during  the  French  Revolution — The  Philosophic  Premises 
of  the  Anarchist  Theory — The  Political  and  Economic  Assump- 
tions of  Anarchism. 


"  Die  Welt  wird  alt  und  wird  wieder  jung 
Doch  der  Mensch  hofft  immer  auf  Besserung." 

NARCHY  means,  in  its  ideal  sense, 
the  perfect,  unfettered  self-govern- 
ment of  the  individual,  and,  conse- 
quently, the  absence  of  any  kind  of 
external  government.  This  funda- 
mental formula,  which  in  its  essence  is  common  to 
all  actual  and  real  Theoretical  Anarchists,  contains 
all  that  is  necessary  as  a  guide  to  the  distinguishing 
features  of  this  remarkable  movement.  It  demands 
the  unconditional  realisation  of  freedom,  both  sub- 
jectively and  objectively,  equally  in  political  and  in 
economic  life.     In  this,  Anarchism  is  distinct  from 


4  Anarchism 

Liberalism,  which,  even  in  its  most  radical  represent- 
atives, only  allows  unlimited  freedom  in  economic 
affairs,  but  has  never  questioned  the  necessity  of 
some  compulsory  organisation  in  the  social  relation- 
ships of  individuals ;  whereas  Anarchism  would  ex- 
tend the  Liberal  doctrine  of  laisser  faire  to  all  human 
actions,  and  would  recognise  nothing  but  a  free  con- 
vention or  agreement  as  the  only  permissible  form 
of  human  society.  But  the  formula  stated  above 
distinguishes  Anarchism  much  more  strongly  (be- 
cause the  distinction  is  fundamental)  from  its  anti- 
thesis. Socialism,  which  out  of  the  celebrated  trinity 
of  the  French  Revolution  has  placed  another  figure, 
that  of  Equality,  upon  a  pedestal  as  its  only  deity. 
Anarchism  and  Socialism,  in  spite  of  the  fact  that 
they  are  so  often  confused,  both  intentionally  and 
unintentionally,  have  only  one  thing  in  common, 
namely,  that  both  are  forms  of  idolatry,  though  they 
have  different  idols,  both  are  religions  and  not 
sciences,  dogmas  and  not  speculations.  Both  of 
them  are  a  kind  of  honestly  meant  social  mysticism, 
which,  anticipating  the  partly  possible  and  perhaps 
even  probable  results  of  yet  unborn  centuries,  urge 
upon  mankind  the  establishment  of  a  terrestrial 
Eden,  of  a  land  of  the  absolute  Ideal,  whether  it  be 
Freedom  or  Equality.  It  is  only  natural,  in  view 
of  the  difficulty  of  creating  new  thoughts,  that  our 
modern  seekers  after  the  millennium  should  look  for 
their  Eden  by  going  backwards,  and  should  shape 
it  on  the  lines  of  stages  of  social  progress  that  have 
long  since  been  passed  by ;  and  in  this  is  seen  the 
irremediable  internal  contradiction  of  both  move- 


Precursors  and  Early  History        5 

ments  :   they   intend  an  advance,  but  only  cause 
retrogression. 

Are  we,  then,  to  take  Anarchism  seriously,  or  shall 
we  pass  it  by  merely  with  a  smile  of  superiority  and 
a  deprecating  wave  of  our  hand  ?  Shall  we  declare 
war  to  the  knife  against  Anarchists,  or  have  they  a 
claim  to  have  their  opinions  discussed  and  respected 
as  much  as  those  of  the  Liberals  or  Social  Demo- 
crats, or  as  those  of  religious  or  ecclesiastical  bodies  ? 
These  questions  we  can  only  answer  at  the  conclu- 
sion of  this  book;  but  at  this  point  I  should  like  to 
do  away  with  one  conception  of  Anarchism  which  is 
frequently  urged  against  it. 

Those  who  wish  nowadays  to  seem  particularly 
enlightened  and  tolerant  as  regards  this  dangerous 
movement,  describe  it  as  a  "  pathological  phenome- 
non." We  have  done  our  best  to  make  some  sense 
of  this  mischievous,  though  modern,  analogy,  but 
have  never  succeeded,  in  spite  of  Lombroso,  Kraft- 
Ebing,  and  others  undeniably  capable  in  their  own 
department.  The  former,  in  his  clever  book  on  this 
subject,*  has  confused  individual  with  social  patho- 
logy. When  Lombroso  completely  identified  the 
Anarchist  theory  and  idea — with  which  he  is  by  no 
means  familiar — with  the  persons  engaged  in  An- 
archist actions,  and  made  an  attempt  (which  is  cer- 
tainly successful)  to  trace  the  political  methods  of 
thought  and  action  of  a  great  many  of  them  to 

'  Cesare  Lombroso,  The  Anarchists,  a  Study  in  Criminal  Psycho- 
logy and  Sociology.  (German  translation  by  Dr.  Hans  Kneller,  after 
the  2d  edition  of  the  original,     Hamburg,  1895.) 


6  Anarchism 

pathological  premises,  he  reached  the  false  conclu- 
sion that  Anarchism  itself  was  a  pathological  phe- 
nomenon. But  in  reality  the  only  conclusion  from 
his  demonstration  is  that  many  unhealthy  and 
criminal  characters  adopt  Anarchism,  a  conclusion 
which  he  himself  admits  in  this  remark,  that 
"  Criminals  take  part  specially  in  the  beginnings  of 
insurrections  and  revolutions  in  large  numbers,  for, 
at  a  time  when  the  weak  and  undecided  are  still 
hesitating,  the  impulsive  activity  of  abnormal  and 
unhealthy  characters  preponderates,  and  their  ex- 
ample then  produces  epidemics  of  excesses."  This 
fact  we  fearlessly  acknowledge ;  and  it  gains  a  special 
significance  for  us  in  that  the  Anarchists  themselves 
base  their  system  of  "  propaganda  by  action  "  upon 
this  knowledge.  But  if  we  are  therefore  to  call  this 
phenomenon  a  symptom  that  Anarchism  itself  is  a 
pathological  phenomenon,  to  what  revolutionary 
movement  might  we  not  then  apply  this  criterion, 
and  what  would  it  imply  if  we  did  ? 

I  have  stated,  and  (I  hope)  have  shown  elsewhere  * 
what  may  be  understood  by  "  pathological  "  social 
phenomena,  namely,  an  abnormal  unhealthy  condi- 
tion of  the  popular  mind  in  the  sense  of  a  general 
aberration  of  the  intellect  of  the  masses,  as  is  pos- 
sibly the  case  in  what  is  known  as  Anti-Semitism. 
But  even  in  this  limited  sense  it  appears  quite  inad- 
missible and  incorrect  to  call  Anarchism  a  patho- 
logical phenomenon.  Let  us  be  fair  and  straight- 
forward, if  we  wish  to  learn ;  let  us  be  just,  even  if 

'  Rupticism,  Pietism,  and  Anti-Semitism  at  the  Close  of  the  Nine- 
teenth Century,  a  study  in  social  history.     Vienna,  1894. 


Precursors  and  Early  History        7 

we  are  to  benefit  our  most  dangerous  enemies ;  for 
in  the  end  we  shall  benefit  ourselves.  With  An- 
archism there  is  no  question  of  transitory  anomalies 
of  the  public  mind,  but  of  a  well  defined  condition 
which  is  visibly  increasing  and  which  is  necessarily 
connected  with  all  previous  and  accompanying  con- 
ditions; it  is  a  question  of  ideas  and  opinions  which 
are  the  logical,  even  if  in  practice  inadmissible,  de- 
velopment of  views  that  have  long  been  well  known 
and  recognised  by  the  majority  of  civilised  men.  A 
further  test  of  every  unhealthy  phenomenon,  namely, 
its  local  character,  is  entirely  lacking  in  Anarchism; 
for  we  meet  with  it  to-day  extending  all  over  the 
world,  wherever  society  has  developed  in  a  manner 
similar  to  our  own ;  we  meet  it  not  merely  in  one 
class,  but  see  members  of  all  classes,  and  especially 
members  of  the  upper  classes,  attach  themselves 
to  it.  The  fathers,  as  we  may  call  them,  of  the 
Anarchist  theory  are  almost  entirely  men  of  great 
natural  gifts,  who  rank  high  both  intellectually  and 
morally,  whose  influence  has  been  felt  for  half  a 
century,  who  have  been  born  in  Russia,  Germany, 
France,  Italy,  England,  and  America,  men  who  are 
as  different  one  from  another  as  are  the  circum- 
stances and  environment  of  their  respective  coun- 
tries, but  who  are  all  of  one  mind  as  regards  the 
theory  which  we  mentioned  at  the  beginning  of  this 
chapter. 

And  that  is  what  Anarchism  undoubtedly  is:  a 
theory,  an  idea,  with  all  the  failings  and  dangers, 
but  also  with  all  the  advantages  which  a  theory 
always  possesses,  with  just  as  much,  and  only  as 


8  Anarchism 

much,  validity  as  a  theory  can  demand  as  its  due, 
but  at  any  rate  a  theory  which  is  as  old  as  human 
civilisation,  because  it  goes  back  to  the  most  power- 
ful civilising  factor  in  humanity. 

The  care  for  the  bare  necessities  of  life,  the  inex- 
orable struggle  for  existence,  has  aroused  in  mankind 
the  desire  for  fellow-strugglers,  for  companions.  In 
the  tribe  his  power  of  resistance  was  increased,  and 
his  prospect  of  self-support  grew  in  proportion  as  he 
developed  together  with  his  fellows  into  a  new  col- 
lective existence.  But  the  fact  that,  notwithstand- 
ing this,  he  did  not  grow  up  like  a  mere  animal  in  a 
flock,  but  in  such  a  way  that  he  always — even  if 
often  only  after  long  and  bitter  experience — found 
his  proper  development  in  the  tribe — this  has  made 
him  a  man  and  his  tribe  a  society.  Which  is  the 
more  ancient  and  more  sacred,  the  unfettered  rights 
of  the  individual  or  the  welfare  of  the  community  ? 
Can  anyone  take  this  question  seriously  who  is  ac- 
customed to  look  at  the  life  and  development  of 
society  in  the  light  of  facts  ?  Individualism  and 
Altruism  are  as  inseparably  connected  as  light  and 
darkness,  as  day  and  night.  The  individualistic 
and  the  social  sense  in  human  society  correspond  to 
the  centrifugal  and  centripetal  forces  in  the  universe, 
or  to  the  forces  of  attraction  and  repulsion  that  gov- 
ern molecular  activity.  Their  movements  must  be 
regarded  simply  as  manifestations  of  forces  in  the  di- 
rection of  the  resultants,  whose  components  are  Indi- 
vidualism and  Altruism.  If,  to  use  a  metaphor  from 
physics,  one  of  these  forces  was  excluded,  the  body 


Precursors  and  Early  History        9 

would  either  remain  stock-still,  or  would  fly  far 
away  into  infinity.  But  such  a  case  is,  in  society  as 
in  physics,  only  possible  in  imagination,  because  the 
distinction  between  the  two  forces  is  itself  only  a 
purely  mental  separation  of  one  and  the  same  thing. 
This  is  all  that  can  be  said  either  for  or  against 
the  exclusive  accentuation  of  any  one  single  social 
force.  All  the  endeavours  to  create  a  realm  of  un- 
limited and  absolute  freedom  have  only  as  much 
value  as  the  assumption,  in  physics,  of  space  abso- 
lutely void  of  air,  or  of  a  direction  of  motion  abso- 
lutely uninfluenced  by  the  force  of  gravity.  The 
force  which  sets  a  bullet  in  motion  is  certainly 
something  actual  and  real;  but  the  influence  which 
would  correspond  to  this  force,  this  direction  in  the 
sense  in  which  the  physicist  distinguishes  it,  exists 
only  in  theory,  because  the  bullet  will,  as  far  as  all 
actual  experience  goes,  only  move  in  the  direction 
of  a  resultant,  in  which  the  impetus  given  to  it  and 
the  force  of  gravity  are  inseparably  united  and  ap- 
pear as  one.  If,  therefore,  it  is  also  clear  that  the 
endeavour  to  obtain  a  realm  of  unconditional  free- 
dom contradicts  ipso  facto  the  conception  of  life,  yet 
all  such  endeavours  are  by  no  means  valueless  for 
our  knowledge  of  human  society,  and  consequently 
for  society  itself;  and  even  if  social  life  is  always 
only  the  resultant  of  different  forces,  yet  these  forces 
themselves  remain  something  real  and  actual,  and 
are  no  mere  fiction  or  hypothesis ;  while  the  growing 
differentiation  of  society  shows  how  freedom,  con- 
ceived as  a  force,  is  something  actual,  although  as 
^n  ideal  it  may  never  attain  full  realisation,     ThQ 


lo  Anarchism 

development  of  society  has  proceeded  hand  in  hand 
with  a  conscious  or  more  often  unconscious  assertion 
of  the  individual,  and  the  philosopher  Hegel  could 
rightly  say  that  the  history  of  the  world  is  progress 
in  the  consciousness  of  freedom.  At  all  events,  it 
might  be  added,  the  statement  that  the  history  of 
the  world  is  progress  in  the  consciousness  of  the  uni- 
versal interdependence  of  mankind  would  have  quite 
as  much  justification,  and  practically  also  just  the 
same  meaning. 

The  circumstance  that,  apart  from  the  events  of 
what  is  comparatively  a  modern  period,  the  great 
social  upheavals  of  history  have  not  taken  place  ex- 
pressly in  the  name  of  freedom,  although  they  have 
indisputably  implied  it,  only  proves  that  in  this  case 
we  have  to  deal  not  with  a  mere  word  or  idea,  but 
with  an  actual  force  which  is  active  and  acting, 
without  reference  to  our  knowledge  or  consciousness 
of  it.  The  recognition  of  individual  freedom,  and 
much  more  the  endeavour  to  make  it  the  only  ob- 
ject of  our  life,  are  certainly  of  quite  recent  date. 
But  these  presuppose  a  certain  amount  of  progress  in 
the  actual  process  of  setting  the  individual  free  in 
his  moral  and  political  relationships,  which  is  not  to 
be  found  in  the  whole  of  antiquity,  and  still  less  in 
the  middle  ages. 

It  is  not  possible  to  point  to  clearer  traces  of  An- 
archist influences  in  the  numberless  social  religious 
revolutions  of  the  close  of  the  middle  ages,  without 
doing  violence  to  history,  although,  as  in  all  critical 
periods,  even  in  that  of  the  Reformation, — which  cer- 


Precursors  and  Early  History       u 

tainly  implied  a  serious  revolt  against  authority, — 
there  was  no  lack  of  isolated  attempts  to  make  the 
revolt  against  authority  universal,  and  to  abolish 
authority  of  every  kind.  We  find,  for  instance,  in 
the  thirteenth  century,  a  degenerate  sect  of  the 
"  Beghards,"  who  called  themselves  "  Brothers  and 
Sisters  of  the  Free  Spirit,"  or  were  also  called 
"  Amalrikites,"  after  the  name  of  their  founder.* 
They  preached  not  only  community  of  goods  but 
also  of  women,  a  perfect  equality,  and  rejected 
every  form  of  authority.  Their  Anarchist  doctrines 
were,  curiously  enough,  a  consequence  of  their 
Pantheism.  Since  God  is  everything  and  every- 
where, even  in  mankind,  it  follows  that  the  will  of 
man  is  also  the  will  of  God ;  therefore  every  limit- 
ation of  man  is  objectionable,  and  every  person  has 
the  right,  indeed  it  is  his  duty,  to  obey  his  im- 
pulses. These  views  are  said  to  have  spread  fairly 
widely  over  the  east  of  France  and  part  of  Germany, 
and  especially  among  the  Beghards  on  the  Rhine." 
The  "  Brothers  and  Sisters  of  the  Free  Spirit  "  also 
appear  during  the  Hussite  wars  under  the  name  of 
"  Adamites  "  ;  this  name  being  given  them  because 

'  Amalrich  of  Bena,  near  Chartres,  was,  about  1200  A.D.,  a  profes- 
sor of  theology  at  Paris.  He  had  to  defend  himself  before  Pope 
Innocent  III.  on  a  charge  of  pantheistic  teaching,  and  then  recanted. 
His  follower,  David  of  Dinant,  however,  continued  his  work  after  his 
master's  death  (in  1206  or  1207),  and  this  caused  a  condemnation  of 
Amalrich's  teaching  by  the  Synod  of  Paris  in  1210,  and  by  the  Lat- 
eran  Council  in  1215,  and  also  led  to  a  severe  persecution  of  the 
Amalrikites. 

*  E.  Bernstein  and  K.  Kautsky,  Die  Vorlaufer  des  Neueren  Social' 
ismus,  Stuttgart,  1895.     Part  i.,  pp.  169  and  216. 


12  Anarchism 

they  declared  the  condition  of  Adam  to  be  that  of 
sinless  innocence.  Their  enthusiasm  for  this  happy 
state  of  nature  went  so  far  that  they  appeared  in 
their  assemblies,  called  "  Paradises,"  literally  in 
Adamite  costume,  that  is,  quite  naked. 

But  that,  in  spite  of  all  this,  the  real  Communism 
of  this  sect  went  no  farther  than  a  kind  of  patri- 
archal Republicanism,  certainly  not  as  far  as  actual 
Anarchy,  is  proved  by  the  information  given  by 
.^neas  Sylvius :  that  they  certainly  had  community 
of  women,  but  that  it  was  nevertheless  forbidden  to 
them  to  have  knowledge  of  any  woman  without  the 
permission  of  their  leader. 

There  is  one  other  sect  met  with  during  the  Hus- 
site wars  in  Bohemia,  which  bears  some  similarity 
to  the  Anarchical  Communism  of  the  present  day, 
that  of  the  Chelcicians.'  Peter  of  Chelcic,  a  peace- 
ful Taborite,  preached  equality  and  Communism; 
but  this  universal  equality  should  not  (he  said)  be 
imposed  upon  society  by  the  compulsion  of  the 
State,  but  should  be  realised  without  its  interven- 
tion. The  State  is  sinful,  and  an  outcome  of  the  Evil 
One,  since  it  has  created  the  inequality  of  property, 
rank,  and  place.  Therefore  the  State  must  dis- 
appear ;  and  the  means  of  doing  away  with  it  con- 
sists not  in  making  war  upon  it,  but  in  simply 
ignoring  it.  The  true  follower  of  this  theory  is 
thus  neither  allowed  to  take  any  office  under  the 
State  nor  call  in  its  help ;  for  the  true  Christian 
strives  after  good  of  his  own  accord,  and  must  not 
compel  us  to  follow  it,  since  God  desires  good  to  be 

'  Vorldufer  des  Neueren  Socialismus,  Pt.  i. ,  p.  230. 


Precursors  and  Early  History      13 

done  voluntarily.  All  compulsion  is  from  the  Evil 
One;  all  dignities  or  distinctions  of  classes  offend 
against  the  law  of  brotherly  love  and  equality.  This 
pious  enthusiast  easily  found  a  small  body  of  fol- 
lowers in  a  time  when  men  were  weary  of  war  after 
the  cruelties  of  the  Hussite  conflicts;  but  here,  too, 
his  theory  developed  in  practice  into  a  kind  of 
Quietism  under  priestly  control,  an  austere  Puritan- 
ism, which  is  the  very  opposite  of  the  personal  free- 
dom of  Anarchism. 

Once  more  the  Anarchist  views  of  the  Amalrikite 
appear  at  the  beginning  of  the  sixteenth  century 
among  the  Anabaptists  in  the  sect  of  the  "  Free 
Brothers,"  who  considered  themselves  set  free  from 
all  laws  by  Christ,  had  wives  and  property  in  com- 
mon, and  refused  to  pay  either  taxes  or  tithes,  or  to 
perform  the  duties  of  service  or  serfdom.*  The 
"  Free  Brothers  "  had  a  following  in  the  Zurich 
highlands,  but  they  were  of  no  more  importance 
than  the  other  sect,  we  have  mentioned ;  utterly  in- 
comprehensible to  those  of  their  own  time,  they 
formed  the  extreme  wings  of  the  widespread  Com- 
munist movement  which,  coming  at  the  same  time 
as  the  Reformation  in  the  Church,  separates  the  (so- 
called)  middle  ages  from  modern  times  like  a  bound- 
ary line.  We  observe  in  it  nothing  but  the  naively 
logical  development  of  a  belief  that  is  common  to 
most  religions:  the  assumption  of  a  happy  age  in 
the  childhood  of  mankind  (Golden  Age,  Paradise, 

'  '*  Der  Wideraufferen  vosprung,  filrgang,  Secten  v.s.w.  .  .  . 
beschreiben  durch  Heinerrychen  Bullingern.  .  .  ."  Zurich,  1 561. 
Fol.  32. 


14  Anarchism 

and  so  on),  when  men  followed  merely  the  laws  of 
reason  (Morality,  God,  or  Nature,  or  whatever  else 
it  is  called),  and  needed  no  laws  or  punishments  to 
tell  them  to  do  right  and  avoid  wrong;  when  man- 
kind, as  every  schoolboy  knows  from  his  Ovid, — 

"  Vindice  nuUo 
Sponte  sua  sine  lege  fidem  rectumque  colebat ; 
Poena  metusque  aberant,  nee  verba  minacia  fixo 
^re  legebantur,  nee  supplex  turba  timebat 
Judicis  ora  sui,  sed  erant  sine  judice  tuti." 

The  transition  from  this  primeval  Anarchy  to  the 
present  condition  of  society  has  been  presented  by 
religion,  both  Graeco-Roman  and  Judaic-Christian, 
as  the  consequence  of  a  deterioration  of  mankind 
("  the  Fall  "),  and  as  a  condition  of  punishment, 
which  is  to  be  followed,  in  a  better  world  and  after 
the  work  of  life  has  been  well  performed,  by  another 
life  as  Eden-like  as  the  first  state  of  man,  and 
eternal.  But  it  must  not  be  forgotten  that  Christ- 
ianity was  at  first  a  proletarian  movement,  and  that 
a  great  part  of  its  adherents  certainly  did  not  join  it 
merely  with  the  hope  of  a  return  to  the  original 
state  of  Paradise  in  a  future  world.  Perhaps 
(thought  they)  this  Paradise  might  be  attainable  in 
this  world.  It  can  be  seen  that  the  Church  had 
originally  nothing  to  lose  by  at  least  not  opposing 
this  hope  of  a  millennium  ' ;  and  so  we  see  not  only 
heretics  like  Kerinthos,  but  also  pillars  of  ortho- 
doxy, like  Papios  of  HieropoHs,  Irenaeus,  Justin 
Martyr,  and  others,  preaching  the  doctrine  of  the 

*  Or,  from  the  Greek,  chiliad ;  and  hence  the  word  chiliasm^ 
expressing  the  belief  in  a  millennium. 


Precursors  and  Early  History       15 

millennium.  In  later  times,  indeed,  when  the  Church 
had  long  since  ceased  to  be  a  mainly  proletarian 
movement,  and  when  Christianity  had  risen  from  the 
Catacombs  to  the  palace  and  the  throne,  the  hopes 
of  the  poor  and  oppressed  for  an  approaching  mil- 
lennial reign  lost  their  harmless  character,  and  "  Mil- 
lennialism  "  became  ipso  facto  heresy.  But  this 
heresy  was,  as  may  be  understood,  not  so  easy  to 
eradicate ;  and  when,  in  the  closing  centuries  of  the 
middle  ages,  the  material  position  of  large  classes  of 
people  had  again  become,  in  spite  of  Christianity, 
most  serious  and  comfortless,  Millennialism  awoke 
again  actively  in  men's  minds,  and  formed  the  pre- 
lude, as  well  as  the  Socialist  undercurrent,  of  the 
Reformation.  Some  Radical  offshoots  of  this  medi- 
eval Millennialism  we  have  already  noticed  in  the 
"  Brothers  and  Sisters  of  the  Free  Spirit,"  the 
Adamites,  Chelcicians,  and  "  Free  Brothers." 

The  presuppositions  of  this  flattering  superstition 
are  so  deeply  founded  in  the  optimism  of  mankind, 
that  it  remained  the  same  even  when  divested  of  its 
religious,  or  rather  its  confessional,  garment ;  and 
could  be  no  more  eradicated  by  the  Rationalistic 
tendency  that  arose  after  the  Reformation  than  by 
the  interdict  of  Rome  or  the  brutal  cruelties  of 
ecclesiastical  justice. 

If  we  look  more  closely  into  the  doctrine  of  the 
so-called  contrat  social,  which  was  destined  to  form 
the  programme  of  the  French  Revolution,  we  again 
recognise  without  much  difficulty  the  fundamental 
ideas  of  the  Millennialists,  hardly  altered  at  all.     A 


1 6  Anarchism 

Paradise  without  laws,  existing  before  civilisation, 
which  is  considered  as  a  curse,  and  another  like  unto 
it,  when  "  this  cursed  civilisation  "  is  abolished,  is 
what  a  modern  Anarchist  would  say.  The  names 
only  are  different,  and  are  taken  from  the  vocabulary 
of  Rationalism,  instead  of  from  that  of  religious 
mythology.  Instead  of  divine  rights  men  spoke 
now  of  the  everlasting  and  unalterable  rights  of 
man ;  instead  of  Paradise,  of  a  happy  state  of  nature, 
in  which  there  is,  however,  an  exact  resemblance  to 
Ovid's  golden  age,  the  transition  into  the  present 
form  of  society  was  represented  to  be  due  to  a  social 
contract  or  agreement,  occasioned,  however,  by  a 
certain  moral  degeneracy  in  mankind,  only  differing 
in  name  from  the  "  Fall."  In  this  case,  also,  An- 
archy is  regarded  as  underlying  society  as  the  ideal 
state  of  nature;  every  form  of  society  is  only  the 
consequence  of  the  degeneration  of  mankind,  a  pis 
aller,  or,  at  any  rate,  only  a  voluntary  renunciation 
of  the  original,  inalienable,  and  unalterable  rights  of 
man  and  nature,  the  chief  of  which  is  Freedom. 

In  the  further  development  of  this  main  idea  the 
believers  in  the  contrat  social  have  been  divided. 
While  some,  foremost  among  whom  is  Hobbes,  de- 
clared the  contract  thus  formed  once  and  for  all  as 
permanent  and  unbreakable,  and  hence  that  the 
authority  of  the  sovereign  was  irrevocable  and  with- 
out appeal,  and  thus  arrived  at  Monarchism  pure 
and  simple;  others,  and  these  the  great  majority, 
regarded  the  contract  merely  as  provisional,  and  the 
powers  of  the  sovereign  as  therefore  limited.  In 
this  case  everyone  is  not  only  free  to  annul  the  con- 


Precursors  and  Early  History       17 

tract  at  any  time  and  place  himself  outside  the 
limits  of  society/  but  the  contract  is  also  regarded 
as  broken  if  the  sovereign — whether  a  person  or  a 
body  corporate — oversteps  his  authority.  Here  the 
return  to  the  primeval  state  of  Anarchy  not  only 
shines,  as  it  were,  afar  off  as  a  future  ideal,  but  ap- 
pears as  the  permanently  normal  state  of  mankind, 
only  occasionally  disturbed  by  some  transitory  form 
of  social  life.  This  idea  cannot  be  more  clearly  ex- 
pressed than  in  the  words  which  the  poet  Schiller — 
certainly  not  an  advocate  of  bombs — puts  into  the 
mouth  of  Stauffacher  in  William  Tell : 

"  When  the  oppressed    .     .     . 
.     .     .     makes  appeal  to  Heaven 
And  thence  brings  down  his  everlasting  rights, 
Which  there  abide,  inalienably  his, 
And  indestructible  as  are  the  stars, 
Nature's  primeval  state  returns  again, 
Where  man  stands  hostile  to  his  fellow-man." 

How  nearly  the  doctrine  of  the  "social  contract  " 
corresponds  to  the  idea  of  Anarchy  is  shown  by  the 
circumstance  that  one  of  the  first  (and  what  is  more, 
one  of  the  ecclesiastical)  representatives  of  this 
doctrine,  Hooker,  declared,  that  "  it  was  in  the 
nature  of  things  not  absolutely  impossible  that  men 
could  live  without  any  public  form  of  government." 
Elsewhere  he  says  that  for  men  it  is  foolish  to  let 

'  "  Cette  liberte  commun  est  une  consequence  de  la  nature  de 
I'homme.  Sa  premiere  loi  est  de  veiller  a  sa  propre  conservation,  ses 
premiers  soins  sont  ceux  qu'il  se  doit  a  lui-meme  :  et  sitot  qu'il  est  en 
age  de  raison,  lui  seul  ctant  juge  des  moyens  propres  k  le  conserver, 
devient  par  Ik  son  propre  maitre." — ROUSSEAU, 


1 8  Anarchism 

themselves  be  guided,  by  authority,  like  animals; 
it  would  be  a  kind  of  fettering  of  the  judgment, 
though  there  were  reasons  to  the  contrary,  not  to 
pay  heed  to  them,  but,  like  sheep,  to  follow  the 
leader  of  the  flock,  without  knowing  or  caring 
whither.  On  the  other  hand,  it  is  no  part  of  our 
belief  that  the  authority  of  man  over  men  shall  be 
recognised  against  or  beyond  reason.  Assemblies 
of  learned  men,  however  great  or  honourable  they 
may  be,  must  be  subject  to  reason.  This  refers,  of 
course,  only  to  spiritual  and  ecclesiastical  authority; 
but  Locke,  who  followed  Hooker  most  closely,  dis- 
covered only  too  clearly  what  the  immediate  conse- 
quences of  such  assumptions  would  be,  and  tried  to 
avoid  them  by  affirming  that  the  power  of  the  sov- 
ereign, being  merely  a  power  entrusted  to  him,  could 
be  taken  away  as  soon  as  it  became  forfeited  by 
misuse,  but  that  the  break-up  of  a  government  was 
not  a  break-up  of  society.  In  France,  on  the  other 
hand,  Etienne  de  la  Boetie  had  already  written, 
when  oppressed  by  the  tyranny  of  Henry  H.,  a 
Discours  de  la  Servitude  Volontaire,  ou  Contr'un  (in 
1546),  containing  a  glowing  defence  of  Freedom, 
which  goes  so  far  that  the  sense  of  the  necessity  of 
authority  disappears  entirely.  The  opinion  of  La 
Boetie  is  that  mankind  does  not  need  government; 
it  is  only  necessary  that  it  should  really  wish  it, 
and  it  would  find  itself  happy  and  free  again,  as  if 
by  magic. 

So  we  see  how  the  upholders  of  the  social  con- 
tract are  separated  into  a  Right,  Central,  and  Left 
party.     At  the  extreme  right  stands  Hobbes,  whom 


Precursors  and  Early  History       19 

the  defenders  of  Absolutism  follow;  in  the  centre 
is  Locke,  with  the  Republican  Liberals ;  and  on  the 
extreme  left  stand  the  pioneers  of  Anarchism,  with 
Hooker  the  ecclesiastic  at  their  head.  But  of  all 
the  theoretical  defenders  of  the  "  social  contract," 
only  one  has  really  worked  out  its  ultimate  conse- 
quences. William  Godwin,  in  his  Inquiry  concerning 
Political  Justice,^  demanded  the  abolition  of  every 
form  of  government,  community  of  goods,  the  abo- 
lition of  marriage,  and  self-government  of  mankind 
according  to  the  laws  of  justice.  Godwin's  book 
attracted  remarkable  attention,  from  the  novelty 
and  audacity  of  his  point  of  view.  "  Soon  after  his 
book  on  political  justice  appeared,"  writes  a  young 
contemporary,  "  workmen  were  observed  to  be  col- 
lecting their  savings  together,  in  order  to  buy  it,  and 
to  read  it  under  a  tree  or  in  a  tavern.  It  had  so 
much  influence  that  Godwin  said  it  must  contain 
something  wrong,  and  therefore  made  important  al- 
terations in  it  before  he  allowed  a  new  edition  to 
appear.  There  can  be  no  doubt  that  both  Govern- 
ment and  society  in  England  have  derived  great 
advantage  from  the  keenness  and  audacity,  the  truth 
and  error,  the  depth  and  shallowness,  the  magnani- 
mity and  injustice  of  Godwin,  as  revealed  in  his 
inquiry  concerning  political  justice." 

Our  next  business  is  to  turn  from  theoretical  con- 
siderations of  the  contrat  social  to  the  practice  based 
upon  this  catchword ;  and  to  look  for  traces  of  An- 
archist thought  upon  the  blood-stained  path  of  the 

*  London,  1795,  2  vols. 


20  Anarchism 

great  French  Revolution — that  typical  struggle  of 
the  modern  spirit  of  freedom  against  ancient  society. 
We  are  the  more  desirous  to  do  this,  because  of  the 
frequent  and  repeated  application  of  the  word  An- 
archist to  the  most  radical  leaders  of  the  democracy 
by  the  contemporaries,  supporters,  and  opponents 
of  the  Revolution.  As  far  as  we  in  the  present  day 
are  able  to  judge  the  various  parties  from  the  his- 
tory of  that  period, — and  we  certainly  do  not  know 
too  much  about  it, — there  were  not  apparently  any 
real  Anarchists '  either  in  the  Convention  or  the 
Commune  of  Paris.  If  we  want  to  find  them,  we 
must  begin  with  the  Girondists  and  not  with  the 
Jacobins,  for  the  Anarchists  of  to-day  recognise — 
and  rightly  so — no  sharper  contrast  to  their  doctrine 
than  Jacobinism;  while  the  Anarchism  of  Proudhon 
is  connected  in  two  essential  points  with  its  Girond- 
ist precursors — namely,  in  its  protest  against  the 
sanction  of  property  and  in  its  federal  principle. 
But,  nevertheless,  neither  Vergniaud  nor  Brissot 
was  an  Anarchist,  even  though  the  latter,  in  his 
Philosophical  Examinatioti  of  Property  and  Theft 
(1780),  uttered  a  catchword,  afterwards  taken  up  by 

'  Jean  Grave  says  in  his  book,  La  SociM  Mourante,  p,  21  :  "In 
the  year  1793  one  talked  of  Anarchists.  Only  Jacques  Roux  and  the 
'  suragh '  appear  to  have  been  those  who  saw  the  Revolution  most 
clearly,  and  wished  to  turn  it  to  the  benefit  of  the  people  ;  and,  there- 
fore, the  bourgeois  historian  has  left  them  in  the  background  ;  their 
history  has  still  to  be  written  ;  the  documents  buried  in  archives  and 
libraries  are  waiting  for  one  who  shall  have  time  and  courage  to 
exhume  them,  and  bring  to  light  the  secrets  of  events  that  are  to  us 
almost  incomprehensible.  Meanwhile,  we  can  pass  no  judgment  on 
their  programme."    Of  course  we  can  do  so  still  less. 


Precursors  and  Early  History      21 

Proudhon.  At  the  same  time,  they  have  no  cause 
and  no  right  to  reproach  the  "  Mountain  "  with 
Anarchist  tendencies. 

Neither  Danton  nor  Robespierre,  the  two  great 
Hghts  of  the  **  Mountain,"  dreamed  of  making  a 
leap  into  the  void  of  a  society  without  government. 
Their  ideal  was  rather  the  omnipotence  of  society, 
the  all-powerful  State,  before  which  the  interests  of 
the  individual  were  scattered  like  the  spray  before 
the  storm;  and  the  great  Maximilian,  the  "  Chief 
Rabbi  "  of  this  deification  of  the  State,  accordingly 
called  himself  "  a  slave  of  freedom."  Robespierre 
and  Danton,  on  their  side,  called  the  Hebertists 
Anarchists.  If  one  can  speak  of  a  principle  at  all 
among  these  people,  who  placed  all  power  in  the 
hands  of  the  masses  who  had  no  votes,  and  the 
whole  art  of  politics  in  majorities  and  force,  it  was 
certainly  not  directed  against  the  abolition  of  au- 
thority. The  maxims  of  these  people  were  chaos 
and  the  right  of  the  strongest.  Marat,  the  party 
saint,  had  certainly,  on  occasion,  inveighed  against 
the  laws  as  such,  and  desired  to  set  them  aside ;  but 
Marat  all  the  time  wanted  the  dictatorship,  and  for 
a  time  actually  held  it.  The  Marat  of  after  Thermi- 
dor  was  the  infamous  Caius  Gracchus  Baboeuf,  who 
is  now  usually  regarded  as  the  characteristic  repre- 
sentative of  Anarchism  during  the  French  Revolu- 
tion— and  regarded  so  just  as  rightly,  or  rather  as 
wrongly,  as  those  mentioned  above.  Baboeuf  was 
a  more  thorough-going  Socialist  than  Robespierre ; 
indeed  he  was  a  Radical  Communist,  but  no  more. 
In  the  proclamation  issued  by  Baboeuf  for  the  226. 


22  Anarchism 

of  Floreal,  the  day  of  the  insurrection  against  the 
Directoire,  he  says:  "The  revolutionary  authority 
of  the  people  will  announce  the  destruction  of  every 
other  existing  authority."  But  that  means  nothing 
more  than  the  dictatorship  of  the  mob;  which  is 
rejected  in  theory  by  Anarchists  of  all  types,  just  as 
much  as  any  other  kind  of  authority.  That  the  fol- 
lowers of  Baboeuf  had  nothing  else  in  view  is  shown 
by  the  two  placards  prepared  for  this  day,  one  of 
which  said,  "  Those  who  usurp  the  sovereignty 
ought  to  be  put  to  death  by  free  men,"  while  the 
other,  explaining  and  limiting  the  first,  demanded 
the  "  Constitution  of  1793,  liberty,  equality,  and 
universal  happiness."  This  constitution  of  1793 
was,  however,  Robespierre's  work,  and  certainly  did 
not  mean  the  introduction  of  Anarchy. 

Echoes  and  traditions  of  Baboeuf's  views,  often 
passing  through  intermediaries  like  Buonarotti,  are 
found  in  the  Carbonarists  of  the  first  thirty  years  of 
our  own  century,  and  applied  to  this  (as  to  so  many 
other  popular  movements)  the  epit-het  **  Anarchi- 
cal, ' '  so  glibly  uttered  by  the  lips  of  the  people.  But 
among  the  chiefs,  at  least,  of  that  secret  society  that 
was  once  so  powerful,  we  find  no  trace  of  it ;  on  the 
contrary  they  declared  absolute  freedom  to  be  a  de- 
lusion which  could  never  be  realised.  Yet  even 
here,  though  the  fundamental  dogma  of  Anarchism 
is  rejected,  we  notice  a  step  forward  in  the  exten- 
sion of  the  Anarchist  idea.  It  was  indeed  rejected 
by  the  members  of  that  society,  but  it  was  known  to 
them,  and  what  is  more,  they  take  account  of  it, 
and  support  every  effort  which,  by  encouraging  in- 


Precursors  and  Early  History      23 

dividualism  to  an  unlimited  extent,  is  hostile  to  the 
union  of  society  as  such.  Thus  we  even  find  indi- 
vidual Carbonarists  with  pronounced  Anarchist  views 
and  tendencies.  Malegari,  for  instance,  in  1835, 
described  the  raison  d'etre  of  the  organisation  in 
these  words  *:  "  We  form  a  union  of  brothers  in  all 
parts  of  the  earth ;  we  all  strive  for  the  freedom  of 
mankind ;  we  wish  to  break  every  kind  of  yoke. 

Between  the  time  when  these  words  were  spoken 
and  the  appearance  of  the  famous  What  is  Property  ? 
and  the  Individual  and  his  Property,  there  elapsed 
only  about  ten  years.  How  much  since  then  has 
been  changed,  whether  for  better  or  worse,  how 
much  has  been  cleared  up  and  confused,  in  the  life 
and  thought  of  the  nations  ! 

Feuerbach  described  the  development  which  he 
had  passed  through  as  a  thinker  in  the  words: 
"  God  was  my  first  thought.  Reason  my  second, 
Man  my  third  and  last."  Not  only  Feuerbach,  but 
all  modern  philosophy,  has  gone  through  these 
stages ;  and  Feuerbach  is  only  different  from  other 
philosophers,  in  having  himself  assisted  men  to 
reach  the  third  and  final  stage.  The  epoch  of  philo- 
sophy that  was  made  illustrious  by  the  brilliant 
trinity  of  Descartes,  Spinoza,  and  Leibnitz,  how- 
ever far  it  may  have  departed  or  emancipated  itself 
from  the  traditions  of  religion,  not  only  never  de- 
posed the  idea  of  God,  but  actually  for  the  first  time 
made  the  conception  of  the  Deity  the  starting-point 

'  J.  A.  M.  Brtihle :  Die  Geheimbunde ge^en  Rom.  Zur  Genesis  der 
italien.  Revolution,     Prague,  i860. 


24  Anarchism 

of  all  Thought  and  Existence.  The  philosophy 
which  abolished  this,  whether  we  consider  Locke 
and  Hume  the  realists,  or  Kant  and  Hegel  the 
idealists,  is  philosophy  of  intellect ;  absolute  reason 
has  taken  the  place  of  an  absolute  God,  criticism 
and  dialectics  the  place  of  ontology  and  theocracy. 
But  in  philosophy  we  find  the  very  opposite  of  the 
mythological  legend,  for  in  it  Chronos  instead  of 
devouring  his  children  is  devoured  by  them.  The 
critical  school  turned  against  its  masters,  who  were 
already  sinking  into  speculative  theology  again,  quite 
forgetting  that  its  great  leader  had  introduced  a  new 
epoch  with  a  struggle  against  ontology ;  and  losing 
themselves  in  the  heights  of  non-existence,  just  as  if 
they  had  never  taken  their  start  from  the  thesis, 
that  no  created  mind  can  comprehend  the  nature  of 
the  Being  that  is  behind  all  phenomena.  From  such 
heights  a  descent  had  to  be  made  to  our  earth; 
instead  of  immortal  individuals,  as  conceived  by 
Fichte,  Hegel,  and  Schelling,  the  school  of  Feuer- 
bach,  Strauss,  and  Bauer  postulated  "  human  be- 
ings, sound  in  mind  and  body,  for  whom  health  is 
of  more  importance  than  immortality."  Concen- 
tration upon  this  life  took  the  place  of  vague 
trancendentalism,  and  anthropology  the  place  of 
theology,  ontology,  and  cosmology.  Idealism  be- 
came bankrupt ;  God  was  regarded  no  longer  as  the 
creator  of  man,  but  man  as  the  creator  of  God. 
Humanity  now  took  the  place  of  the  Godhead. 

The  new  principle  was  now  a  universal  or  absolute 
one;  but,  as  with  Hegel,  universal  or  absolute  only 
in  words,  for  to  sense  it  is  extremely  real,  just  as 


Precursors  and  Early  History      25 

Art  in  a  certain  sense  is  more  real  than  the  indi- 
vidual. It  was  the  "  generic  conception  of  human- 
ity, not  something  impersonal  and  universal  but 
forming  persons,  inasmuch  as  only  in  persons  have 
we  reality."     (D.  F.  Strauss.) 

If  philosophic  criticism  were  to  go  still  farther  than 
this,  there  remained  nothing  more  for  it  than  to  de- 
stroy this  generalisation,  and  instead  of  Humanity 
to  make  the  individual,  the  person,  the  centre  of 
thought.  A  strong  individualistic  and  subjective 
feature,  peculiar  to  the  Kantian  and  post-Kantian 
philosophy,  favoured  such  a  process.  Although  in 
the  case  of  Fichte,  Hegel,  and  Schelling  this  feature 
had  never  outstepped  the  limits  of  the  purely  com- 
prehensible, yet  such  a  trait  makes  philosophy  infer 
a  similarly  strongly  developed  feature  of  individual- 
ism in  the  people,  especially  as  at  that  time  it  was 
so  closely  connected  with  popular  life.  Moreover, 
at  that  period  there  was  a  great  desire  (as  we  see  in 
Fichte  and  his  influence  on  the  nation)  to  translate 
philosophy  at  once  into  action;  and  so  it  was  not 
remarkable  that  a  thinker  regardless  of  consequences 
should  introduce  the  idea  of  individualism  into  the 
field  of  action,  and  regard  this  also  as  suitable  for 
"  concentration  of  thought  upon  this  present  life." 
Herewith  began  a  new  epoch;  just  as  formerly 
human  thought  had  proceeded  from  the  individual 
up  to  the  universal,  so  now  it  descended  from  the 
highest  generalisation  down  again  to  the  individual ; 
to  the  process  of  getting  free  from  self  followed  the 
regaining  of  self. 

Here  was  the  point  at  which  an  Anarchist  philo- 


26  Anarchism 

sophy   could   intervene,   and,  as   a  matter   of    fact 
did  intervene,  in  Stirner. 

In  another  direction  also,  and  about  the  same 
time,  the  critical  philosophy  had  reached  a  point  be- 
yond which  it  could  not  go  without  attacking  not 
only  the  changing  forms,  but  also  the  very  founda- 
tions of  all  organisations  of  society  which  were  then 
possible.  However  far  the  Aufklarer,  the  Encyclo- 
paedists, the  heedless  fighters  in  the  political  re- 
volution, and  the  leading  personages  in  the  spiritual 
revolution,  had  gone  in  their  unsparing  criticism  of 
all  institutions  and  relationships  of  life,  they  had 
not  as  yet,  except  in  a  few  isolated  cases,  attacked 
Religion,  the  State,  and  Property,  as  such  in  the 
abstract. 

However  manifold  and  transitory  their  various 
forms  might  be,  these  three  things  themselves  still 
seemed  to  be  the  incontrovertible  and  necessary 
conditions  of  spiritual,  political,  and  social  life, 
merely  the  different  concrete  formulae  for  the  one 
absolute  idea  which  could  not  be  banished  from  the 
thought  of  that  age. 

But  if  we  approach  these  three  fundamental  ideas 
with  the  probe  of  scientific  criticism,  and  resolutely 
tear  away  the  halo  of  the  absolute,  it  does  not  on 
that  account  seem  necessary  for  us  to  declare  that 
they  are  valueless  or  even  harmful  in  life.  We  read 
Strauss's  Life  of  Jesus,  and  put  it  down  perhaps 
with  the  conviction  that  the  usually  recognised 
sources  of  inspired  information  as  to  revealed  re- 
ligion and  the  divine  mission  of  Christianity  are  an 


Precursors  and  Early  History       27 

unskilful  compilation  of  purely  apocryphal  docu- 
ments; but  are  we  on  that  account  to  deny  the 
importance  of  Judaism  and  Christianity  in  social 
progress  and  ethics  ?  Or  again,  I  may  read  E.  B. 
Tyler's  Primitive  Culture  and  see  the  ideas  of  the 
soul  and  God  arise  from  purely  natural  and  (for  the 
most  part)  physiological  origins,  just  as  we  can  trace 
the  development  of  the  skilful  hand  of  Raphael  or 
Liszt  from  the  fore-limbs  of  an  ape;  but  am  I  from 
that  to  conclude  that  the  idea  of  religion  is  harmful 
to  society  ?  It  is  just  the  same  with  the  ideas  of 
the  State  and  Property.  Modern  science  has  shown 
us  beyond  dispute  the  purely  historical  origin  of 
both  these  forms  of  social  life ;  and  both  are,  at  least 
as  we  find  them  to-day,  comparatively  recent  feat- 
ures of  human  society.  This,  of  course,  settles  the 
question  as  to  the  State  and  Property  being  inviol- 
able, or  being  necessary  features  of  human  society 
from  everlasting  to  everlasting  ;  but  the  further 
question  as  to  how  far  these  forms  are  advantages 
and  relatively  necessary  for  society  in  general,  or  for 
a  certain  society,  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  above, 
and  cannot  be  answered  by  the  help  of  a  simple  logi- 
cal formula.  But  though  this  fact  seems  so  clear  to 
us,  it  is  even  to-day  not  by  any  means  clear  to  a 
great  portion  of  mankind.  And  how  much  less  clear 
it  must  have  been  to  thinkers  at  the  beginning  of 
this  century  when  thought  was  still  firmly  moulded 
upon  the  conception  of  the  Absolute.  To  them 
there  could  only  be  either  absolute  Being  or  absolute 
Not-Being  ;  and  as  soon  as  ever  critical  philosophy 
destroyed  the  idea  of  the  "  sacredness  "  of  the  in- 


28  Anarchism 

stitutions  referred  to  (Property  and  the  State),  it 
was  almost  unavoidable  that  it  should  declare  them 
to  be  "  unholy,"  /,  e.,  radically  bad  and  harmful. 
The  logic  which  underlies  this  process  of  thought  is 
similar  to  that  which  concludes  that  if  a  thing  is  not 
white  it  must  be  black.  But  it  cannot  be  denied 
that  just  at  this  time — during  the  celebrated  dix  ans 
after  the  Revolution  of  July — many  circumstances 
seemed  positively  to  favour  such  an  inference. 

Not  only  were  economic  conditions  unsatisfactory 
(though  pauperism  alone  will  never  produce  An- 
archism), but  even  hope  and  faith  had  gone.  Ideal- 
ism was  bankrupt,  not  only  in  the  political  but  also 
in  the  economic  world.  Full  of  the  noblest  anima- 
tion, and  with  the  most  joyous  confidence,  the 
French  nation  had  entered  upon  the  great  Revolu- 
tion, and  all  Europe  had  looked  full  of  hope  towards 
France,  whence  they  expected  to  see  the  end  of  all 
tyranny  and — since  such  things  at  that  time  were 
not  well  understood — the  end  of  all  misery.  We 
may  be  spared  the  detailed  description  of  the  transi- 
tion by  which  this  hope  and  these  childish  expecta- 
tions, this  Millennialism,  were  bitterly  disillusioned, 
and  how  the  excitement  of  1789  to  1791  ended  in  a 
great  wail  of  woe ;  and  that  too  not  only  in  France, 
where  absolute  monarchy  post  tot  discrimina  verum 
had  merely  changed  into  an  absolute  empire,  but 
also  in  Germany,  whose  princes  hastened  to  recall 
the  concessions  made  under  the  pressure  of  the  Re- 
volution. The  monarchs  of  Europe  then  celebrated 
an  orgie  of  promise-breaking,  from  which  even  to- 
day the   simple   mind  of  the   people   revolts   with 


Precursors  and  Early  History      29 

deep  disgust.  It  need  only  be  remembered  how 
in  the  Napoleonic  wars  of  Germany  noble  princes 
exploited  the  flaming  enthusiasm  and  the  naive  con- 
fidence of  their  people  for  their  own  dynastic  pur- 
poses, and  then,  after  the  downfall  of  the  Corsican, 
drove  them  back  again  through  the  old  Caudine  yoke. 
If,  after  such  unfortunate  experiences,  the  people, 
and  especially  the  insatiate  elements  amongst  them, 
had  retained  any  remains  of  confidence  in  help  from 
above,  it  must  have  perished  in  the  sea  of  disgust 
and  bitterness  at  the  Revolution  of  July. 

In  a  struggle  for  a  free  form  of  the  State,  which 
lasted  almost  half  a  century,  the  proletariat  and  its 
misery  had  grown  without  cessation.  They  had 
fought  for  constitutional  monarchy,  for  the  Repub- 
lic, and  for  the  Empire;  they  had  tried  Bourbons 
and  Bonapartes  and  Orleanists;  they  had  gone  to 
the  barricades  and  to  the  field  of  battle  for  Robes- 
pierre, Napoleon,  and  finally  for  Thiers  ;  but  of 
course  their  success  was  always  the  same :  not  only 
their  economic  position,  but  also  the  social  condition 
of  the  lower  masses  of  the  people  had  remained  un- 
changed. It  was  recognised  more  and  more  that 
between  the  proletariate  and  the  upper  classes  there 
was  something  more  than  a  separation  of  mere 
constitutional  rights  ;  in  fact,  that  the  privileges  of 
wealth  had  taken  the  place  of  the  privileges  of  birth ; 
and  the  more  the  masses  recognised  this  the  more 
did  their  interest  in  purely  political  questions,  and, 
above  all,  the  question  as  to  the  form  of  the  State, 
sink  into  the  background,  while  it  became  more  and 
more  clearly  seen  that  the  equality  of  constitutional 


30  Anarchism 

rights  was  no  longer  real  equality,  and  that  the 
attainment  of  equality  necessitated  the  abolition  of 
all  privileges,  including  also  the  privilege  of  free 
possession  or  of  property.  Henceforth,  therefore, 
every  revolutionary  power  attacks  no  longer  politi- 
cal points  but  the  question  of  property,  and  even 
though  all  movements  did  not  proceed  so  far  as  to 
open  Communism,  yet  they  were  animated  by  the 
main  idea  that  the  question  of  human  poverty  was 
to  be  solved  only  by  limitation  of  the  right  of  free 
acquisition,  possession,  and  disposal  of  property. 

The  dogma  of  the  sanctity  of  property  was  in  any 
case  gone  for  ever.  But  still  the  last  dogma,  that 
of  the  inviolability  of  the  State,  remained.  The 
Franco-German  Socialists  of  the  third  and  fourth 
decades  of  our  century,  Saint-Simon,  Cabet,  Weit- 
ling,  Rodbertus,  down  to  Louis  Blanc  himself,  did 
not  think  of  denying  the  State  as  such,  but  had 
thought  of  it  as  playing  the  principal  part  in  the  ex- 
ecution of  their  new  scheme  of  organisation  of  indus- 
try and  society.  But  the  very  character  of  the  new 
reforming  tendencies  necessitated  an  unlimited  pre- 
ponderance of  State  authority  which  would  crush 
out  the  freedom  of  decision  in  the  individual.  And 
a  directly  opposite  tendency,  opposed  to  all  author- 
ity, could  appear,  therefore, — though  certainly  from 
the  nature  of  the  case  necessary, — at  first  only  as  a 
very  feeble  opposition. 

The  principle  of  equality  was  not  disputed,  but 
the  use  of  brute  force  through  the  power  of  the 
State  was  regarded  with  horror  in  the  form  in  which 
the  followers  of  Baboeuf,  the  enthusiasts  for  Uto- 


Precursors  and  Early  History      31 

pianism,  preached  it.  The  necessity  for  an  organis- 
ation of  industry  was  not  denied,  but  men  began  to 
ask  the  question  whether  this  organisation  could  not 
proceed  from  below  upwards  till  it  reached  freedom  ? 
Already  Fourier's  phalanxes  might  be  regarded  as 
such  an  attempt  to  organise  industry  through  the 
formation  of  free  groups  from  below  upwards;  an 
attempt  to  which  the  Monarchists  and  Omniarchists 
are  merely  an  exterior  addition.  If  we  leave  out  of 
consideration  the  rapid  failure  of  the  various  Social- 
istic attempts  at  institutions  based  upon  the  found- 
ation of  authority,  yet  the  sad  experiences  of  half  a 
century  filled  with  continual  constitutional  changes 
would  have  sufficed  to  undermine  the  respect  for 
authority  as  such.  Absolute  monarchy  as  well  as 
constitutional,  the  Republic  just  as  much  as  Im- 
perialism, the  dictatorship  of  an  individual  just  as 
much  as  that  of  the  mob,  had  all  alike  failed  to  re- 
move pauperism,  misery,  and  crime,  or  even  to 
alleviate  them ;  was  it  not  then  natural  for  superficial 
minds  to  conclude  that  the  radical  fault  lay  in  the 
authoritative  form  of  society  in  the  State  as  such  ? 
did  not  the  thought  at  once  suggest  itself  that  a 
further  extension  of  Fourier's  system  of  the  forma- 
tion of  groups  on  the  basis  of  the  free  initiative  of 
the  individual  might  be  attempted  without  taking 
the  State  into  account  at  all  ?  But  here  was  a 
further  point  at  which  a  system  of  social  and  politi- 
cal Anarchism  might  begin  with  some  hope  of  suc- 
cess, and  here  it  actually  did  begin  with  Proudhon. 


CHAPTER  II 


PIERRE  JOSEPH   PROUDHON 

Biography — His  Philosophic  Standpoint — His  Early  Writings — The 
"  Contradictions  of  Political  Economy" — Proudhon's Federation 
— His  Economic  Views — His  Theory  of  Property — Collectivism 
and  Mutualism — Attempts  to  Put  his  Views  into  Practice — 
Proudhon's  Last  Writings — Criticism, 

^HE  man  who  had  such  a  powerful,  not 
to  say  fateful,  influence  upon  the 
progress  of  the  proletarian  movement 
of  our  century  was  himself  one  of  the 
proletariat  class  by  birth  and  calling. 
Pierre  Joseph  Proudhon  was  born  15th  January, 
1809,  in  a  suburb  of  Besan9on.  His  father  was  a 
cooper,  his  mother  a  cook;  and  Pierre  Joseph,  in 
spite  of  his  thirst  for  knowledge,  had  to  devote 
himself  to  hard  work,  instead  of  completing  his 
studies;  he  became  a  proofreader  in  some  printing 
works  at  Besan^on,  and  as  a  journeyman  printer 
wandered  all  through  France.  Having  returned  to 
Besangon,  he  entered  the  printing  house  again  as  a 
factor.  In  the  year  1836  he  founded,  with  a  fellow- 
workman  in  the  same  town,  a  little  printing  shop, 

32 


Pierre  Joseph  Proudhon  33 

which,  however,  he  wound  up  after  his  partner  had 
died  in  1838,  being  determined  to  change  the  occu- 
pation he  had  followed  so  far,  for  another  for  which 
he  had  already  long  been  preparing  by  diligent  study 
both  during  his  wanderings  and  in  his  leisure  hours 
in  past  years.  Proudhon's  activity  as  an  author 
began  in  the  year  1837.  The  Academy  at  Besan- 
qon  had  to  award  a  three  years'  scholarship,  which 
had  been  founded  by  Suard,  the  secretary  of  the 
French  Academy,  for  poor  young  men  of  Franche- 
Comte  who  wished  to  devote  themselves  to  a  literary 
or  scientific  career.  Proudhon  entered  as  a  compet- 
itor, and  won  the  scholarship.  In  the  memoir  of 
his  life,  which  he  drew  up  for  the  Academy,  he  said  : 
"  Born  and  reared  in  the  midst  of  the  working 
classes,  to  which  I  belong  with  my  heart  and  in  my 
affections,  and  above  all  by  the  community  of  suffer- 
ings and  aspirations,  it  will  be  my  greatest  joy,  if  I 
receive  the  approval  of  the  Academy,  to  work  un- 
ceasingly with  the  help  of  philosophy  and  science, 
and  with  the  whole  energy  of  my  will  and  all  my 
mental  powers,  for  the  physical,  moral,  and  intel- 
lectual improvement  of  those  whom  I  call  brothers 
and  companions,  in  order  to  sow  amongst  them  the 
seeds  of  a  doctrine  which  I  consider  as  the  law  of 
the  moral  world,  and  hoping  to  succeed  in  my  en- 
deavours, to  appear  before  you,  gentlemen,  as  theif 
representative."  As  to  the  studies  to  which  he  de- 
voted himself  in  Paris  for  several  years  after  receiving 
the  scholarship,  Proudhon  relates  himself  that  he 
received  light,  not  from  the  socialistic  schools  which 
then  existed  and  were  coming  into  fashion,  not  from 


34  Anarchism 

partisans  or  from  journalists,  but  that  he  began  with 
a  study  of  the  antiquities  of  Socialism,  a  study  which, 
according  to  his  opinion,  was  absolutely  necessary 
in  order  to  determine  the  theoretical  and  practical 
laws  of  the  social  movement. 

It  gives  us  a  somewhat  strange  sensation  to  learn 
that  Proudhon,  the  father  of  Anarchism,  made 
these  sociological  studies  in  the  Bible;  and  this 
Book  of  books  is  even  to-day  the  most  important 
source  of  empiric  sociology.  For  no  other  book  re- 
flects so  authentically  and  elaborately  the  develop- 
ment of  an  important  social  Individualism,  and  in 
Proudhon's  time  the  Bible  (in  view  of  the  complete 
lack  of  ethnographic  observations  which  then  pre- 
vailed) was  also  almost  the  only  source  of  studies  of 
this  kind.  And  if  also  it  must  be  admitted  that 
these  studies  could  not  fail  to  be  one-sided,  yet  it 
cannot  be  denied  that  Proudhon  proceeded  in  a  way 
incomparably  more  correct  than  most  social  philo- 
sophers have  done  either  before  or  since,  for  they 
have  built  up  their  systems  generally  by  deductive 
and  dogmatic  methods. 

An  essay  which  Proudhon  wrote  upon  the  intro- 
duction of  Sunday  rest,  from  the  point  of  view  of 
morality,  health,  and  the  relations  of  a  family  estate, 
brought  him  a  bronze  medal  from  the  Academy,  and 
he  was  able  afterwards  to  say  with  truth:  "  My 
Socialism  received  its  baptism  from  a  learned  society, 
and  I  have  an  academy  as  sponsor  "  ;  certainly  a  re- 
markable boast  for  one  who  denied  all  authority. 

Proudhon  appears  to  have  travelled  very  quickly 
along  the  road  which  led  from  the  regions  of  faith 


Pierre  Joseph  Proudhon  35 

to  the  metaphysics  prevailing  at  that  time  ;  and 
already  he  took  for  his  criterion — as  he  tells  us  later 
in  his  Confessions — the  proposition  (drawn  up  ac- 
cording to  the  Hegelian  theory,  that  everything 
when  it  is  legalised  at  the  same  time  brings  its  oppo- 
site with  it),  "  that  every  principle  which  is  pursued 
to  its  farthest  consequence  arrives  at  a  contradiction 
when  it  must  be  considered  false  and  repudiated ; 
and  that,  if  this  false  principle  has  given  rise  to  an 
institution,  this  institution  itself  must  be  regarded 
as  an  artificial  product  and  as  a  Utopia."  This 
proposition  Proudhon  later  on  formulated  as  fol- 
lows: "  Every  true  thought  is  conceived  in  time 
once,  and  breaks  up  in  two  directions.  As  each  of 
these  directions  is  the  negation  of  the  other  and 
both  can  only  disappear  in  a  higher  idea,  it  follows 
that  the  negation  of  law  is  itself  the  law  of  life  and 
progress,  and  the  principle  of  continual  movement." 
Here,  indeed,  we  have  Proudhon's  whole  teaching; 
with  this  magic  wand  of  negation  of  law  he  thought 
he  could  open  the  magic  world  of  social  problems, 
and  heal  up  the  wounds  of  the  social  organisation. 

"  My  masters,"  said  Proudhon  to  his  friend  Lan- 
glois  in  the  year  1848,  "  that  is  those  who  woke 
fruitful  ideas  in  me,  are  three :  first  of  all,  the  Bible, 
then  Adam  Smith,  and  finally  Hegel."  Proudhon 
always  boasted  of  being  Hegel's  pupil,  and  Karl 
Marx  maintained  that  it  was  he  who,  during  his  stay 
in  Paris  in  the  year  1844,  in  debates  which  often 
lasted  all  night  long,  inoculated  Proudhon  (to  the 
latter's  great  disadvantage)  with  Hegelianism,  which 
he  nevertheless  could  not  properly  study  owing  to 


36  Anarchism 

his  ignorance  of  the  German  language.  A  well- 
known  anecdote  attributes  to  Hegel  the  witty  say- 
ing that  only  one  scholar  understood  him  and  he 
misunderstood  him.  We  do  not  know  who  this 
scholar  was,  but  it  might  just  as  well  have  been 
Marx  as  Proudhon,  for  that  which  both  of  them 
took  from  the  great  philosopher,  and  applied  as 
and  how  and  when  they  did,  is  common  to  both: 
namely,  the  dialectic  method  applied  to  the  prob- 
lems of  social  philosophy. 

The  similarity  between  them  in  this  respect  is  so 
striking  that  one  might  call  both  these  embittered 
opponents  the  personal  antitheses  of  the  great 
master,  Hegel.  As  for  the  rest,  Proudhon's  inocu- 
lation with  Hegelianism,  which  was  afterwards  con- 
tinued by  K.  Griin  and  Bakunin,  must  have  been 
very  marked  and  continuous,  for  we  shall  con- 
stantly be  meeting  with  traces  of  it  as  we  go  on. 
Powerful  as  was  the  influence  of  Hegel  upon  Proud- 
hon, the  Anarchist  was  but  little  affected  by  the 
fashionable  philosophy  of  his  contemporary  and 
fellow-countryman,  A.  Comte ;  which  is  all  the  more 
remarkable  since  it  is  Comte's  Positivism  which, 
proceeding  along  the  lines  of  Spencer's  philo- 
sophy, has  in  no  small  degree  influenced  modern 
Anarchism,  while  echoes  of  the  Comtian  individ- 
ualist doctrine  are  even  to  be  found  in  the  Ger- 
man contemporary  of  Proudhon,  Stirner  ;  echoes 
which,  although  numerous,  are  perhaps  unconscious. 
Proudhon  attached  himself,  as  already  mentioned, 
specially  to  the  Hegelian  dialectic  and  to  the  doc- 
trine of  Antitheses.     Using  this  criterion,  Proudhon 


Pierre  Joseph  Proudhon  37 

proceeded  to  the  consideration  and  criticism  of 
social  phenomena;  and  just  as  beginners  and  pupils 
in  the  difficult  art  of  philosophy,  instead  of  content- 
ing themselves  with  preliminary  questions,  attack 
the  very  kernel  of  problems,  with  all  the  rashness  of 
ignorance,  so  Proudhon  also  attacked,  as  his  first 
problem,  the  fundamental  social  question  of  prop- 
erty, taking  it  up  for  the  subject  of  his  much-quoted 
though  much  less  read  work,  W/mf  is  Property  ? 
{Quest-ce  que  laPropriete? — First  essay  in  Recher- 
ches  sur  le  Principe  du  Droit  et  du  Gouvernement). 
Proudhon  has  been  judged  and  condemned,  though, 
and  wrongly,  yet  almost  exclusively,  by  this  one 
essay,  written  at  the  beginning  of  his  literary  career. 
Friends  and  foes  alike  have  always  contented  them- 
selves with  regarding  the  celebrated  dictum  there 
uttered.  Property  is  Theft,  as  the  Alpha  and  the 
Omega  of  Proudhon's  teaching,  without  reading  the 
book  itself.  And  because  it  has  been  thought  suffi- 
cient to  catch  up  a  phrase  dragged  from  all  its  con- 
text, so  it  has  happened  that  Proudhon  to-day, 
although  he  is  one  of  the  most  frequently  mentioned 
authors,  is  hardly  either  known  or  read.  Although 
the  question  of  property  forms  the  corner-stone  of 
all  Proudhon's  teaching,  yet  it  would  be  wrong  to 
identify  it  with  his  doctrine  entirely.  And  it  is  no 
less  wrong  to  represent  the  first  attempt  which 
Proudhon  made  to  solve  so  great  a  problem  as  the 
whole  of  his  views  about  property,  as  unfortunately 
even  serious  authors  have  hitherto  done  almost 
without  exception,  and  especially  those  who  make 
a  special  study  of  him,  such  as  Diehl.     As  a  matter 


38  Anarchism 

of  fact,  Proudhon  has  carefully  and  elaborately  set 
forth  his  theory  of  property  in  several  other  works 
which  are  mixed  up  for  the  most  part  with  his  other 
numerous  writings,  and  has  left  behind  a  fragment  of 
a  book  on  the  theory  of  property,  in  which  he  meant 
to  produce  a  comprehensive  theory  of  property  as  the 
foundation  of  his  whole  work.  We  must,  therefore, 
in  order  not  to  anticipate,  leave  a  complete  exposi- 
tion of  Proudhon's  theory  of  property  to  a  later 
portion  of  this  book,  hence  we  will  merely  glance  at 
the  work,  W/iat  is  Property?  and  also  at  another 
study  which  appeared  in  1843  called  The  Creation  of 
Order  in  Humanity,  which  shows  the  second,  or  I 
might  say,  the  political  side  of  Proudhon's  train  of 
thought  in  its  first  beginnings,  and  of  which  Proud- 
hon himself  said  later,  that  it  satisfied  neither  him 
nor  the  public,  and  was  worse  than  mediocre,  al- 
though he  had  very  little  to  retract  in  its  contents. 
"  This  book,  a  veritable  infernal  machine,  which 
contains  all  the  implements  of  creation  and  destruc- 
tion," he  said  in  his  Confessions,  "  is  badly  done, 
and  is  far  below  that  which  I  could  have  produced 
if  I  had  taken  time  to  choose  and  arrange  properly 
my  materials.  But  however  full  of  faults  my  work 
may  now  appear,  it  was  then  sufficient  for  my  pur- 
pose. Its  object  was  to  make  me  understand  myself. 
Just  as  contradiction  had  been  useful  to  me  to  de- 
stroy, so  now  the  processes  of  development  served 
me  to  build  up.  My  intellectual  education  was 
completed,  the  Creation  of  Order  had  scarcely  seen 
the  light,  when,  with  the  application  of  the  creative 
method    which    followed   immediately    upon    it,    I 


Pierre  Joseph  Proudhon  39 

understood  that  in  order  to  obtain  an  insight  into 
the  revolution  of  society  the  first  thing  must  be  to 
construct  the  whole  series  of  its  antitheses,  or  the 
system  of  opposites. " 

This  was  done  in  the  book  which  appeared  at 
Paris  in  two  volumes  in  1846,  The  System  of  Economic 
Contradictions,  or  the  Philosophy  of  Misery,  which 
deserves  to  be  called  his  masterpiece,  both  because 
it  contains  the  philosophic  and  economic  founda- 
tions of  his  theory  in  a  perfectly  comprehensive  and 
clear  exposition,  and  because  it  is  impossible  to 
understand  Proudhon  without  a  knowledge  of  these 
contradictions.  In  his  first  work  upon  property, 
Proudhon  had  represented  it  as  something  equiva- 
lent to  theft.  But  now  we  have  another  doctrine 
proposed :  that  Property  is  Liberty.  These  two 
propositions  were  thought  by  Proudhon  to  be  proved 
in  the  same  way.  "  Property  considered  in  the 
totality  of  social  institutions  has,  so  to  speak,  two 
current  accounts.  One  is  the  thought  of  the  good 
which  it  produces,  and  which  flows  directly  from  its 
nature  ;  the  other  is  the  disadvantages  which  it 
produces,  and  the  sacrifices  which  it  causes,  and 
which  also  result  directly,  just  as  much  as  the  good, 
from  its  nature.  In  property  evil,  or  the  abuse  of 
it,  is  inseparable  from  the  good,  just  as  in  book- 
keeping by  double  entry  the  debtor  is  inseparable 
from  the  creditor  side.  The  one  necessarily  implies 
the  other.  To  suppress  the  abuse  of  property  means 
to  extinguish  it,  just  as  much  as  to  strike  out  an 
entry  on  the  debtor  side  means  also  striking  it  out 
on  the  creditor  side  of  an  account,"     He  proceeded 


40  Anarchism 

in  the  same  way  with  all  '"  economic  categories." 
Labour,  he  tells  us  in  the  Contradictions  more  ex- 
plicitly, is  the  principle  of  wealth,  the  power  which 
creates  or  abolishes  values,  or  puts  them  in  propor- 
tion one  to  another,  and  also  distributes  them. 
Labour  thus  in  itself,  at  the  same  time,  is  a  force 
that  makes  for  equilibrium  and  productivity,  which 
one  might  think  should  secure  mankind  against 
every  want.  But  in  order  to  work,  labour  must 
define  and  determine  itself — that  is,  organise  itself. 
What  are,  then,  the  organs  of  labour,  that  is,  the 
forms  in  which  human  labour  produces  and  fixes 
values  and  keeps  off  want  ?  These  forms  or  cate- 
gories are:  divison  of  labour,  machinery,  competi- 
tion, monopoly,  the  State  or  centralisation,  free 
exchange,  credit,  property,  and  partnership. 

However  much  labour  in  itself  is  the  source  of 
wealth,  yet  those  means  which  are  invented  for  the 
purpose  of  increasing  wealth,  become,  through  their 
antagonism  and  through  that  antithetical  character, 
which,  according  to  Proudhon,  lies  in  the  very 
nature  of  all  social  forms,  just  as  many  causes  of 
want  and  pauperism.  Labour  gains  by  its  division 
a  more  than  natural  fertility,  but,  at  the  same  time, 
this  divided  labour,  which  debases  the  workman, 
sinks,  owing  to  the  manner  in  which  this  division  is 
carried  out,  with  great  rapidity  below  its  own  level 
and  only  creates  an  insufficient  value.  After  it 
has  increased  consumption  by  the  superfluity  of 
products,  it  leaves  them  in  the  lurch  owing  to  the 
low  rate  of  pay;  instead  of  keeping  off  want  it 
actually  produces  it, 


Pierre  Joseph  Proudhon  41 

The  deficiency  caused  by  the  division  of  labour 
is  said  to  be  filled  by  machinery,  which  not 
only  increases  and  multiplies  the  productivity  of 
labour,  but  also  compensates  for  the  moral  de- 
ficiency caused  by  the  division  of  labour,  and  sup- 
plies a  higher  unity  and  synthesis  in  place  of  the 
division  of  labour.  But  according  to  Proudhon 
this  is  not  the  case;  with  machinery  begins  the 
distinction  between  masters  and  wage-earners,  be- 
tween capitahsts  and  workmen.  Thus  mankind, 
instead  of  being  raised  up  by  machinery  from  de- 
gradation, sinks  deeper  and  deeper.  Man  loses  both 
his  character  as  a  man,  and  freedom,  and  becomes 
only  a  tool.  Prosperity  increases  for  the  masters, 
poverty  for  the  men ;  the  distinction  of  caste  begins, 
and  a  terrible  struggle  becomes  manifest,  which 
consists  in  increasing  men  in  order  to  be  able  to  do 
without  them.  And  so  the  general  pressure  becomes 
more  and  more  severe;  poverty,  already  heralded 
by  the  division  of  labour,  at  last  makes  its  appear- 
ance in  the  world,  and  henceforth  becomes  the  soul 
and  sinews  of  society. 

As  opposed  to  its  aristocratic  tendencies,  society 
places  freedom  or  competition.  Competition  eman- 
cipates the  workman  and  produces  an  incalculable 
growth  in  wealth.  By  competition  the  productions 
of  labour  continually  sink  in  price,  or  (what  comes 
to  the  same  thing)  continually  increase  in  quality; 
and  since  the  sources  of  competition,  just  like 
mechanical  improvements  and  combinations  of  the 
division  of  labour,  are  infinite,  it  may  be  said  that 
the  productive  force  of  competition  is  unlimited  as 


42  Anarchism 

regards  intensity  and  scope.  At  last,  by  competi- 
tion, the  production  of  wealth  gets  definitely  ahead 
of  the  production  of  men,  by  which  statement 
Proudhon  destroys  the  dogma  of  Malthus,  which, 
we  may  remark,  was  no  more  proved  than  his  own. 
But  this  competition  is  also  a  new  source  of  pauper- 
ism, because  the  lowering  of  prices  which  it  brings 
with  it  only  benefits,  on  the  one  hand,  those  who 
succeed,  and,  on  the  other,  leaves  those  who  fail  with- 
out work  and  without  means  of  subsistence.  The 
necessary  consequence,  and,  at  the  same  time,  the 
natural  antithesis  of  competition  is  monopoly.  It 
is  that  form  of  social  possession  without  which  no 
labour,  no  production,  no  exchange,  and  no  wealth 
would  be  possible.  It  is  most  intimately  connected 
with  individualism  and  freedom,  so  that  without  it 
we  can  hardly  imagine  society,  and  yet  it  is,  quite 
as  much  as  competition,  anti-social  and  harmful. 
For  monopoly  attracts  everything  to  itself — land, 
labour,  and  the  implements  of  labour,  productions 
and  the  distribution  thereof — and  annihilates  them; 
or  it  annihilates  the  natural  equilibrium  of  produc- 
tion and  consumption ;  it  causes  the  labourer  to  be 
deceived  in  the  amount  of  his  reward,  and  it  causes 
progress  in  prosperity  to  be  changed  into  a  continual 
progress  in  poverty.  Finally,  it  inverts  all  ideas  of 
justice  in  commerce. 

The  State,  in  its  economic  relations,  should,  ac- 
cording to  Proudhon,  eventuate  in  an  equalisation 
between  the  patricians  and  the  proletariat  ;  its 
regulations  (such  as  taxation)  should,  in  the  first 
place,    be   an  antidote   against  the  arrogance  and 


Pierre  Joseph  Proudhon  43 

excessive  power  of  monopoly ;  but  even  the  institu- 
tion of  the  State  fails  in  its  purpose,  since  taxes, 
instead  of  being  paid  by  those  who  have  wealth, 
are  almost  exclusively  paid  by  those  who  have  not ; 
the  army,  justice,  peace,  education,  hospitals,  work- 
houses, public  offices,  even  religion,  —  in  short, 
everything  which  is  intended  for  the  advance, 
emancipation,  and  the  relief  of  the  proletariat 
being  first  paid  for  and  supported  by  the  prole- 
tariat, and  then  either  turned  against  it  or  lost  to 
it  altogether. 

It  would  be  useless  to  repeat  what  Proudhon  says 
about  the  beneficial,  and  at  the  same  time  fateful, 
consequences  both  of  free-trade  and  its  opposite. 
Who  does  not  know  the  arguments  which  even  to- 
day are  used  by  politicians  and  savants  in  the  still 
undecided  controversy  for  and  against  it  ? 

In  this  system  of  contradiction,  then,  in  this  anti- 
thesis of  society,  Proudhon  believed  he  had  dis- 
covered the  law  of  social  progress,  while  as  a  matter 
of  fact  he  had  only  given  a  very  negative  proof 
(though  he  certainly  would  hardly  have  acknow- 
ledged it)  that  there  is  not  in  economics  any  more 
than  in  ethics  anything  absolute,  and  that  "  benefit  " 
and  "  harm  "  are  relative  terms  which  have  nothing 
in  common  with  the  essence  of  things;  and  it  is  just 
as  wrong  in  the  one  case  to  regard  the  existing  social 
order  as  the  best  of  all  possible  worlds,  as  it  is  in 
the  other  to  regard  any  one  economic  institution  as 
a  social  panacea,  or  to  blame  one  or  the  other  for  all 
the  evils  of  an  evil  world.  Such  a  confession  of 
faith  might  easily  be  considered  trivial,  and  it  might 


44  Anarchism 

even  give  rise  to  a  supercilious  smile  if  it  required 
nothing  less  than  the  doctrine  of  antithesis  taught 
by  Kant  and  Hegel  to  be  brought  in  to  prove  what 
are  obviously  matters  of  fact.  But  perhaps  it  is 
just  this  superficial  smile  which  is  the  justification 
of  Proudhon,  who  had  to  fight  a  severe  and  not 
always  victorious  battle  for  an  apparently  trivial 
cause.  We  do  not  forget  how  helplessly  the  age  in 
which  he  lived  was  tossed  to  and  fro  in  all  social 
questions,  from  casuistical  Agnosticism  to  arbitrary 
Dogmatism;  from  extreme  Individualism  to  Com- 
munism, from  the  standpoint  of  absolute  laisser 
/aire  to  the  uttermost  reliance  on  authority.  In 
placing  these  two  worlds  in  sharp  contrast  one  to 
another,  Contradictio7is,  with  all  its  acknowledged 
faults  and  errors,  performed  an  undeniable  service ; 
and  this  book — against  which  Karl  Marx  has  written 
a  severe  attack — will  retain  for  all  time  its  value  as 
one  of  the  most  important  and  thorough  works  of 
social  philosophy.  In  any  case,  the  net  result  of 
the  lengthy  discussion,  in  view  of  the  purpose  which 
Proudhon  had  before  him,  was  absolutely  nil.  Proud- 
hon certainly  endeavoured  in  his  dialectic  method 
to  find  a  solution  of  antitheses,  and  to  come  to  some 
positive  result ;  but  even  this  solution,  which  was 
to  have  been  the  great  social  remedy,  is,  when 
divested  of  its  philosophical  garments,  such  a  gen- 
eral and  indefinite  draft  upon  the  bank  of  social 
happiness  that  it  could  never  be  properly  paid. 

"  I  have  shewn,"  said  Proudhon,  at  the  close  of 
his  Contradictions,  "  how  society  seeks  in  formula 
after    formula,     institution    after    institution,    that 


Pierre  Joseph  Proudhon  45 

equilibrium  which  always  escapes  it,  and  at  every 
attempt  always  causes  its  luxury  and  its  poverty  to 
grow  in  equal  proportion.  Since  equilibrium  has 
never  yet  been  reached,  it  only  remains  to  hope 
something  from  a  complete  solution  which  synthet- 
ically unites  theories,  which  gives  back  to  labour  its 
effectiveness  and  to  each  of  its  organs  its  power. 
Hitherto  pauperism  has  been  so  inextricably  con- 
nected with  labour,  and  want  with  idleness,  and  all 
our  accusations  against  Providence  only  prove  our 
weakness."  This  solution  of  the  great  problem  of 
our  century  by  the  synthetic  union  of  economic  and 
social  antithesis,  or,  as  Proudhon  calls  it  in  another 
place,  by  a  scientific,  legal,  immortal,  and  insepar- 
able combination,  is  certainly  a  beautiful  and  noble 
philosophy.  It  cannot  be  denied  that  herewith 
Proudhon,  who,  in  all  his  works,  raged  furiously 
against  Utopians,  has  none  the  less  created  a 
Utopia  of  his  own,  not,  indeed,  by  forcibly  urging 
mankind  through  an  ideal  change,  but  by  attempt- 
ing to  mould  life  into  an  ideal  shape  without,  like 
others,  appealing  to  force,  or  venturing  to  organise 
the  forces  of  terror,  in  order  to  accomplish  his  ideal. 

Just  as  Proudhon  differed  from  the  ready-made 
Socialism  of  his  age  by  a  conception  which  he  op- 
posed to  pauperism,  so,  too,  he  differed  in  the 
method  which  he  recommended  should  be  adopted 
for  the  removal  of  pauperism.  He  certainly  ac- 
cepted the  proposition  that  poverty  could  only  be 
removed  by  the  labourer  receiving  the  entire  result 
of  his  labour,  and  that  social  reform  must,  accord- 


46  Anarchism 

ingly,  consist  of  an  organisation  of  labour.  In  this 
he  was  quite  at  one  with  Louis  Blanc,  but  only  in 
this;  for  while  Louis  Blanc  claimed  for  the  organisa- 
tion of  labour  the  full  authority  of  the  State,  Proud- 
hon  desired  it  to  arise  from  the  free  initiative  of 
the  people,  without  the  interference  of  the  State  in 
any  way.  This  is  the  parting  of  the  roads  between 
Anarchism  and  authoritative  Socialism ;  here  they 
separate  once  for  all,  never  to  meet  again,  except  in 
the  most  violent  opposition.  This  was  the  starting- 
point  of  Proudhon's  Anarchist  views.  The  experi- 
ences of  the  Revolution  of  1848,  which,  from  the 
social  standpoint,  failed  entirely,  might  well  have 
fitted  in  with  these  views  of  his.  Proudhon  had 
taken  a  very  active  part  in  the  occurrences  of  this 
remarkable  year,  as  editor  of  the  People,  and  as  a 
representative  of  the  Department  of  the  Seine,  and 
in  other  capacities,  and  thought  that  the  cause  of 
the  fruitlessness  of  all  attempts  to  solve  the  social 
problem  and  to  reap  the  fruits  of  the  Revolution  lay 
in  the  fact  that  the  Revolution  had  been  initiated 
from  above  instead  of  from  below,  and  because  the 
revolutionary  principle  had  been  installed  in  power, 
and  therefore  had  destroyed  itself.  But  ultimately 
the  opposition  of  Proudhon  to  Blanc  goes  back  to 
the  fundamental  difference  alluded  to  above. 

Society,  as  Proudhon  explains  in  his  Contradic- 
tions, and  as  he  applies  his  doctrine  of  politics  in  his 
book  called  the  Confessions  of  a  Revolutionary, 
written  in  prison  in  1849,  is  essentially  of  a  dialectic 
nature  and  is  founded  upon  opposites,  which  are  all 
mingled  one  with  another,  and  the  combinations  of 


Pierre  Joseph  Proudhon  47 

which  are  infinite.  The  solution  of  the  social 
problem  he  finds  in  placing  the  different  expressions 
of  the  problem  no  longer  in  contradiction  but  in 
their  "  dialectic  developments,"  so  that  for  example 
the  right  to  work,  to  credit,  and  to  assistance,  rights 
whose  realisation  under  an  antagonistic  legislation 
is  impossible  or  dangerous,  gradually  result  from  an 
already  established,  realised,  and  undoubted  right; 
and  so  instead  of  being  stumbling-blocks  one  to 
another  they  find  in  their  mutual  connection  their 
most  lasting  guarantee.  But  since  such  guarantees 
should  lie  in  the  institutions  themselves  the  author- 
ity of  the  State  becomes  neither  necessary  nor  just- 
ifiable for  the  carrying  out  of  this  revolution. 

But  why  should  revolution  from  above  be  impos- 
sible ?  The  doctrine  of  antithesis,  appHed  to 
politics,  implies  freedom  and  order.  The  first  is 
realised  by  revolution,  the  second  by  government. 
Thus  there  is  here  a  contradiction ;  for  the  govern- 
ment can  never  become  revolutionary  for  the  very 
simple  reason  that  it  is  a  government.  But  society 
alone — that  is,  the  masses  of  the  people  when  per- 
meated by  intelligence  —  can  revolutionise  itself, 
because  it  alone  can  express  its  free  will  in  a  rational 
manner,  can  analyse  and  develop  and  unfold  the 
secret  of  its  destination  and  its  origin,  and  alter  its 
beliefs  and  its  philosophy. 

"  Governments  are  the  scourge  of  God,  introduced 
in  order  to  keep  the  world  in  discipline  and  order. 
And  do  you  demand  that  they  should  annihilate 
themselves,  create  freedom,  and  make  revolutions  ? 
That    is    impossible.      All    revolutions,    from   the 


48  Anarchism 

anointing  of  the  first  king  to  the  declaration  of  the 
Rights  of  Man,  have  been  freely  accomplished  by 
the  spirit  of  the  people.  Governments  have  always 
hindered,  oppressed,  and  crushed  them  to  the 
ground.  They  have  never  made  a  revolution.  It 
is  not  their  function  to  produce  movements  but 
to  keep  them  back.  And  even  if  they  possessed 
revolutionary  science — which  is  a  contradiction  of 
terms — they  would  be  justified  in  not  making 
use  of  it.  They  must  first  let  their  knowledge 
be  absorbed  by  the  people  in  order  to  receive  the 
support  of  the  citizens,  and  that  would  mean  to 
refuse  to  acknowledge  the  existence  of  authority 
and  power." 

It  follows  through  this  that  the  organisation  of 
work  by  the  State — as  was  attempted  by  Fourier, 
Louis  Blanc,  and  their  followers  in  a  more  or  less 
remote  degree — is  an  illusion,  and  on  this  theory  re- 
volution can  only  take  place  through  the  initiative 
of  the  people  itself  — "  through  the  unanimous 
agreement  of  the  citizens,  through  the  experience 
of  the  workmen,  and  through  the  progress  and 
growth  of  enlightenment." 

We  here  have  laid  bare  the  yawning  gulf  which 
lies  between  Proudhon  and  the  State  Socialism  of 
his  time,  and  over  this  gulf  there  is  no  bridge.  We 
see  how  from  these  premises  has  been  developed 
gradually  and  logically  that  which  Proudhon  him- 
self has  called  Anarchy  {An-arcJic,  without  govern- 
ment). The  Socialists  have  made  the  statement 
that  the  political  revolution  is  the  means  of  which 
the   social   revolution   is   the   end.     Proudhon  has 


Pierre  Joseph  Proudhon  49 

inverted  this  statement  and  regards  the  social  revolu- 
tion as  the  means  and  a  political  revolution  as  the 
end.  It  is  therefore  a  great  mistake  to  consider 
him,  as  is  always  done,  as  a  political  economist,  for 
he  was  first  and  foremost  a  social  politician.  The 
Socialists  place  as  the  ultimate  object  of  revolution, 
the  welfare  of  all,  enjoyment ;  but  for  Proudhon  the 
principle  of  revolution  is  freedom,  that  is : 

(i)  Political  freedom  by  the  organisation  of  uni- 
versal suffrage,  by  the  independent  centralisation  of 
social  functions,  and  by  the  continual  and  unceasing 
revision  of  the  constitution. 

(2)  Industrial  freedom  through  the  mutual  guar- 
antee of  credit  and  sale.  In  other  words  "  no  gov- 
ernment by  men  by  means  of  the  accumulation  of 
power,  no  exploitation  of  men  by  means  of  the 
accumulation  of  capital." 


Proudhon  thought  that  the  fault  of  every  political 
or  social  constitution,  whether  it  was  the  work  of 
political  or  social  Radicalism,  that  which  produces 
conflicts,  and  sets  up  antagonism  in  society,  lies  in 
the  fact  that  on  the  one  hand  the  division  of  powers, 
or  rather  of  functions,  is  badly  and  incompletely 
performed,  while  on  the  other  hand  centralisation  is 
insufificient.  The  necessary  consequence  of  this  is 
that  the  chief  power  is  inactive  and  the  "  thought 
of  the  people, ' '  or  universal  suffrage,  is  not  exercised. 
Division  of  functions  then  must  be  completed,  and 
centralisation  must  increase ;  universal  suffrage  must 
regain  its  prerogative  and  therewith  give  back  to  the 


50  Anarchism 

people  the  energy  and  activity  which  is  lacking  to 
them. 

The  manner  in  which  Proudhon  proposed  this 
constitution  of  society  by  the  initiative  of  the  masses 
and  the  organisation  of  universal  suffrage  cannot  be 
better  or  more  simply  explained  than  in  the  words 
and  examples  which  he  himself  has  used  in  the 
Confessions  in  order  to  interpret  his  views.  He 
says: 

"  For  many  centuries  the  spiritual  power,  accord- 
ing to  the  traditional  conception  of  it,  has  been 
separated  from  the  temporal  power.  I  remark,  by 
the  way,  that  the  political  principle  of  the  division 
of  powers,  or  functions,  is  the  same  as  the  principle 
of  the  division  of  the  departments  of  industry  or  of 
labour.  Here  already  we  see  a  glimpse  of  the 
identity  of  the  political  and  social  constitution. 
But  now  I  say  that  the  division  of  the  two  powers, 
the  spiritual  and  temporal,  has  never  been  complete ; 
and  that  their  centralisation,  which  was  a  great  dis- 
advantage both  for  ecclesiastical  administration  and 
for  the  followers  of  religion,  was  never  sufficient. 
A  complete  division  would  take  place  if  the  tempo- 
ral power  never  mingled  in  religious  solemnities, 
in  the  administration  of  the  sacraments,  in  the  gov- 
ernment of  parishes,  and  especially  in  the  nomination 
of  bishops.  There  would  then  be  a  much  greater 
centralisation,  and  consequently  still  more  regular 
government,  if  in  every  parish  the  people  had  the 
right  to  choose  their  clergymen  and  chaplains  them- 
selves, or  even  not  to  have  any  at  all ;  if  the  priests 
in  every  diocese  chose  their  bishops ;  if  the  assembly 


Pierre  Joseph  Proudhon  51 

of  bishops  alone  regulated  religious  affairs  in  theologi- 
cal education  and  in  divine  worship.  By  this  divi- 
sion the  clergy  would  cease  to  be  a  tool  of  tyranny 
in  the  hands  of  the  political  power  against  the 
people ;  and  by  this  application  of  universal  suffrage 
the  Church  Government,  centralised  in  itself,  would 
receive  its  inspiration  from  the  people,  and  not  from 
the  Government  or  from  the  Pope:  it  would  con- 
tinually find  itself  in  harmony  with  the  needs  of 
society  and  with  the  spiritual  condition  of  the  cit- 
izens. In  order  thus  to  return  to  organic,  economic, 
and  social  truth,  it  is  necessary  (i)  To  do  away  with 
the  constitutional  accumulation  of  power,  by  taking 
away  the  nomination  of  bishops  from  the  State,  and 
separating  once  for  all  spiritual  from  temporal 
affairs;  (2)  To  centralise  the  Church  in  itself  by  a 
system  of  elective  grades ;  (3)  To  give  to  the  eccles- 
iastical power,  as  to  all  other  powers  of  the  State, 
the  right  of  voting  as  its  foundation.  By  this 
system,  that  which  to-day  is  '  government '  becomes 
nothing  more  than  administration.  And  it  will  be 
understood  if  it  is  possible  to  organise  the  whole 
country  in  all  its  temporal  affairs,  according  to  the 
rules  which  we  have  just  laid  down  for  its  spiritual 
organisation,  the  most  perfect  order  and  the  most 
powerful  centralisation  would  exist  without  there 
being  anything  of  what  we  now  call  the  constituted 
authority  of  a  government. 

"  One  other  example:  formerly  there  existed  be- 
sides the  legislative  and  executive  powers  a  third, 
the  judicial  power.  This  was  an  abolition  of  the 
dividing  dualism,  a  first  step  towards  the  complete 


52  Anarchism 

separation  of  political  functions  as  of  the  depart- 
ments of  industry.  The  judicial  functions — with 
their  different  specialties,  their  hierarchy,  their  irre- 
movability, their  union  in  a  single  ministry — testify 
undoubtedly  to  their  privileged  position  and  their 
efforts  towards  centralisation.  But  these  functions 
do  not  arise  from  the  people  upon  whom  they  are 
exercised;  their  purpose  is  the  administration  of 
executive  power;  they  are  not  subordinated  to  the 
country  by  election,  but  to  the  Government,  presi- 
dent, or  princes,  by  nomination.  The  consequence 
is  that  the  liberties  of  the  people  who  are  judged 
are  given  into  the  hands  of  those  who  are  supposed 
to  be  their  natural  judges,  like  parishioners  into  the 
hands  of  their  pastor,  so  that  the  people  belong  to 
the  magistrates  as  an  inheritance,  while  the  litigants 
exist  for  the  sake  of  the  judge,  and  not  the  judge 
for  the  sake  of  the  litigants.  Apply  universal  suf- 
frage and  the  system  of  elective  grades  to  judicial 
functions  in  the  same  way  as  to  ecclesiastic;  take 
away  their  irremovability  which  is  the  denial  of  the 
right  of  election ;  take  away  from  the  State  all  ac- 
tion and  influence  upon  the  judges;  let  this  order, 
centralised  in  and  for  itself,  arise  solely  from  the 
people,  and  you  have  taken  away  from  the  State  its 
most  powerful  implement  of  tyranny.  You  have 
made  out  of  justice  a  principle  of  freedom  and 
order,  and  unless  you  suppose  that  the  people  from 
whom,  by  means  of  universal  suffrage,  all  power 
must  proceed  is  in  contradiction  with  itself,  and  that 
it  does  not  wish  in  the  case  of  justice  what  it  wishes 
in  the  case  of  religion,  or  vice  versa,  you  may  rest 


Pierre  Joseph  Proudhon  53 

assured  that  the  division  of  power  can  produce  no 
conflict.  You  can  confidently  estabHsh  the  principle 
that  division  and  equilibrium  will  in  future  be 
synonymous, 

I  pass  over  to  another  case,  to  the  military 
power.  It  belongs  to  the  citizens  to  nominate 
their  military  commanders  in  due  order,  by  advanc- 
ing simple  privates  and  national  guards  to  the  lower 
grades  and  officers  to  the  higher  grades  in  the  army. 
Thus  organised  the  army  maintains  its  citizen-like 
sentiment.  There  is  no  longer  a  nation  in  a  nation, 
a  country  in  a  country,  a  kind  of  wandering  colony 
where  the  citizen  is  a  citizen  amongst  soldiers,  and 
learns  to  fight  agains  his  own  country.  The  nation 
itself,  centralised  in  its  strength  and  youth,  can,  in- 
dependently of  the  power  of  the  State,  appeal  to  the 
public  power  in  the  name  of  the  law,  just  like  a  judge 
or  police  official,  but  cannot  command  it  or  exercise 
authority  over  it.  In  the  case  of  a  war  the  army 
owes  obedience  only  to  the  representative  assembly 
of  the  nation,  and  to  the  leaders  appointed  by  it. 

"It  is  clear  that  in  this,  no  judgment  is  passed 
upon  the  necessity  of  these  great  manifestations  of 
the  social  mind,  and  that  if  we  wish  to  abide  by  the 
judgment  of  the  people,  which  alone  is  competent 
to  decide  as  to  the  importance  and  duration  of  its 
institutions,  we  can  do  nothing  better(as  has  just  been 
said)  than  to  constitute  them  in  a  democratic  manner. 

"  Societies  have  at  all  times  experienced  the  need 
of  protecting  their  trade  and  industry  against  foreign 
imports;  the  power  or  function  which  protects  na- 
tive  labour  in   each   country   and  guarantees  it  a 


54  Anarchism 

national  market,  is  taxation  in  the  shape  of  Customs. 
I  will  not  here  say  anything  at  all  about  the  moral- 
ity, or  want  of  it,  the  usefulness  or  the  harm  of 
Customs  duties.  I  take  it  as  I  see  it  in  society, 
and  confine  myself  to  examining  it  from  the  point 
of  view  of  the  constitution  of  powers.  Taxation,  by 
the  very  fact  that  it  exists,  is  a  centralised  function. 
Its  origin  like  its  action,  excludes  every  idea  of 
division  or  dismemberment.  But  how  does  it  hap- 
pen that  this  function,  which  belongs  specially  to  the 
province  of  merchants  and  those  concerned  with  in- 
dustry, and  proceeds  exclusively  from  the  authority 
of  the  Chambers  of  Commerce,  yet  belongs  to  the 
State  ?  Who  can  know  better  than  industry  itself 
wherein  and  to  what  extent  it  requires  protection, 
where  the  compensation  for  the  taxation  which  has 
to  be  raised  must  come  from,  and  what  products  re- 
quire bounties  and  encouragement  ?  And  as  for  the 
Customs  service  itself,  is  it  not  obvious  that  it  is  the 
business  of  those  interested  to  reckon  up  the  ex- 
penses of  it,  while  it  is  not  at  all  suitable  for  the 
Government  to  make  of  it  a  source  of  emolument 
for  its  favourites  by  procuring  an  income  for  its  ex- 
travagances by  differential  taxes  ? 

Besides  the  ministries  of  justice,  religion,  war, 
and  international  trade,  the  Government  appoints 
yet  others;  the  ministry  for  agriculture,  public 
works,  public  instruction,  and  finally  to  pay  for  all 
these,  the  ministry  of  finance.  Our  so-called  divi- 
sion of  powers  is  only  an  accumulation  of  all  kinds 
of  powers,  our  centralisation  is  an  absorption.  Do 
you  not  think  that  the  agriculturists,  who  are  already 


Pierre  Joseph  Proudhon  55 

all  organised  in  their  communities  and  committees, 
would  perform  their  own  centralisation  very  well, 
and  could  guide  their  common  interests  without  this 
being  done  by  the  State  ?  Do  you  not  think  that  the 
merchants,  manufacturers,  agriculturists,  the  indus- 
trial population  of  every  kind,  who  have  their  books 
open  before  them  in  the  Chambers  of  Commerce, 
could  in  the  same  way,  without  the  help  of  the 
State,  without  expecting  their  salvation  from  its 
good-will,  or  their  ruin  from  its  inexperience, 
organise  at  their  own  cost  a  central  administration 
for  themselves;  could  debate  their  own  affairs  in 
general  assemblies;  could  correspond  with  other 
administrations ;  could  pass  all  their  useful  decisions 
without  waiting  for  the  sanction  of  the  President  of 
the  Republic;  and  could  entrust  the  execution  of 
their  will  to  one  amongst  themselves,  who  would  be 
chosen  by  his  fellows  to  be  the  Minister  ?  It  is 
clear  that  the  public  works  which  concern  agricul- 
tural industry  and  trade,  or  the  departments  and 
the  communes,  might  in  future  be  assigned  to  the 
local  and  central  administrations  which  have  an  in- 
terest in  them ;  and  should  no  more  be  a  special 
corporation  in  the  hands  of  the  State  than  is  the 
army,  the  customs,  or  monopolies.  Or  should  the 
State  have  its  hierarchy,  its  privileges,  its  ministry, 
so  that  it  may  carry  on  a  trade  in  mining,  canals,  or 
railways,  may  speculate  on  the  Stock  Exchange, 
grant  leases  for  ninety-nine  years,  and  leave  the 
building  of  streets,  bridges,  dams,  water-ways,  ex- 
cavations, sluices,  etc.,  to  a  legion  of  contractors, 
speculators,  usurers,  destroyers  of  morality,  and  eK- 


56  Anarchism 

tortioners,  who  live  upon  the  pubHc  wealth  by  the 
exploitation  of  workmen  and  wage-earners,  and 
upon  the  folly  of  the  State  ? 

"  Can  it  not  be  believed  that  public  instruction 
could  be  just  as  well  made  universal,  be  adminis- 
tered, directed,  and  that  the  teachers,  professors, 
and  inspectors  could  be  just  as  well  elected,  and 
the  system  of  studies  would  be  just  as  much  in  har- 
mony with  the  habits  and  interests  of  the  nation 
if  it  was  the  business  of  municipal  and  general 
councils  to  appoint  teachers,  while  the  universities 
only  had  to  grant  them  their  diplomas ;  if  in  public 
instruction,  as  in  the  military  career,  merit  in  the 
lower  grades  was  necessary  for  promotion  to  the 
higher,  if  our  dignitaries  of  the  university  must  first 
have  gone  through  the  duties  of  an  elementary 
teacher  and  supervisor  of  studies  ? 

"  Does  one  imagine  that  this  perfectly  democratic 
system  would  do  harm  to  the  discipline  of  schools, 
to  morality,  education,  the  dignity  of  instruction, 
or  the  peace  of  the  family  ? 

"  And  as  the  sinews  of  every  administration  are 
money,  as  the  budget  is  made  for  the  country  and 
not  the  country  for  the  budget,  as  the  taxes  must 
every  year  be  granted  freely  by  the  representatives 
of  the  people,  as  this  is  the  original  and  inalienable 
right  of  the  people  both  under  a  monarchy  and 
a  republic,  since  the  country  must  first  sanction  the 
income  and  expenditure  before  it  can  be  applied  by 
the  Government, — does  it  not  follow  that  the  conse- 
quence of  this  financial  initiative,  which  is  formally 
recognised  as  belonging  to  the  citizens  in  all  our 


Pierre  Joseph  Proudhon  57 

constitutions,  will  consist  in  the  fact  that  the  finance 
minister,  or,  in  a  word,  the  whole  fiscal  organisation, 
belongs  to  the  country  and  not  to  its  ruler;  that  it 
depends  directly  upon  those  who  pay  the  budget 
and  not  upon  those  who  spend  it ;  that  there  would 
be  infinitely  fewer  abuses  in  the  administration  of 
public  money,  fewer  extravagances  and  deficits,  if 
the  State  had  just  as  little  power  over  pubHc  finances 
as  over  religion,  justice,  the  army,  taxes,  public 
works,  and  public  instruction  ? 

"  Supposing  the  heads  of  the  different  branches 
of  administration  were  grouped  together,  we  should 
have  then  a  council  of  ministry  or  an  executive 
power  which  would  serve  just  as  well  as  a  State 
Council.  Place  over  this  a  great  '  jury,'  legislative 
body,  or  national  assembly,  elected  and  commis- 
sioned directly  by  the  whole  of  the  country,  whose 
duty  it  is  not  to  nominate  the  ministers,  for  these 
receive  their  ofifice  from  the  members  of  their  special 
departments,  but  to  look  through  accounts,  to  make 
laws,  to  draw  up  the  budget,  and  to  decide  the 
differences  between  the  different  administrations 
after  having  received  the  report  of  the  Public  Min- 
ister or  the  Minister  of  the  Interior,  to  which  in  the 
future  the  whole  Government  will  be  reduced, — and 
there  you  would  have  a  centralisation  which  would 
be  all  the  stronger  the  more  its  different  centres 
were  multiplied.  You  would  have  responsibility, 
which  is  all  the  more  real  because  the  separation 
between  various  powers  is  more  sharply  defined ; 
you  would  have  a  constitution  which  at  the  same 
time  is  political  and  social. " 


58  Anarchism 

Here  we  have  the  picture  of  the  society  of  the 
future,  as  Proudhon  imagined  it  when  the  principles 
of  democracy  and,  above  all,  of  universal  suffrage 
have  become  a  reality — the  celebrated  federative 
principle  of  Proudhon,  the  inheritance  of  the  most 
talented  party  of  any  age,  the  Girondists,  locally 
developed,  and  to  some  extent  not  without  a  pro- 
found knowledge  of  politics.  It  cannot  be  denied 
that  the  federal  principle,  as  Proudhon  here  ex- 
plains it,  means  the  integration  of  social  force,  which 
in  its  differentiation  meets  us  sometimes  as  a  special 
and  sometimes  as  the  common  interest,  sometimes 
as  Individualism  or  again  as  Altruism.  According 
to  this,  federation  is  nothing  more  than  the  transla- 
tion into  politics  of  the  metaphor  (which  we  formerly 
used  from  physics)  of  the  resultants  of  several  com- 
ponent forces ;  a  metaphor  which  not  only  suits  the 
genius  of  Proudhon,  but  also  is  frequently  found  in 
his  language.  Proudhon  was  deeply  permeated  by 
the  reality  of  Collectivism,  but  saw  it  in  the  light 
both  of  Physics  and  Physiology,  so  that  the  word 
* '  resultants  ' '  is  with  him  more  than  a  metaphor.  In 
this  respect  Proudhon  far  surpassed  in  insight  all  the 
social  philosophers  of  his  age,  and  anticipated  the 
pioneers  of  modern  sociology.  But  he  contradicted 
himself,  and  lost  his  special  merits  by  wishing  to 
make  out  of  a  social  law  an  absolute  formula;  by 
abandoning  the  scientific  standpoint  which  he  once 
attained,  and  falling  back  again  into  dogmatism.  If 
we  conceive  all  society  in  the  mechanical  manner  in 
which  Proudhon  did ;  or  if  we  think  (as  he  did)  that 
we  have  at  least  partially  discovered  the  laws  of  its 


Pierre  Joseph  Proudhon  59 

movement,  then  all  further  politics  exhaust  them- 
selves in  an  experimental  verification  of  the  laws  in 
question.  But  to  anticipate  any  point  of  the  de- 
velopment which  one  expects,  and  to  regard  it  as 
something  absolute,  is  a  process  irreconcilable  with 
an  exact  scientific  method.  In  brief,  Proudhon's 
federalism  is  a  political  principle ;  his  Anarchism  is 
a  dogma,  or  at  best  an  hypothesis  which  cannot 
even  be  logically  proved  from  the  first-named,  for  it 
is  not  true,  as  Proudhon  maintains,  that  the  idea  of 
agreement  excludes  that  of  lordship. 


But  if  Proudhon  conceives  all  society  in  a  me- 
chanical manner,  it  is  to  be  expected  that  he  would 
again  seek — and  find — the  same  laws  that  he  saw 
operating  in  the  political  constitution  also  in  eco- 
nomic life.  This  is,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  the  case. 
"  Agreement  solves  every  problem  ";  only  agree- 
ment in  economic  life  means  with  him  exchange. 
"  Social  agreement,"  he  says,  "is  in  its  essence 
like  the  agreement  of  exchange."  Therefore  the 
corner-stone  in  his  economic  system  is  exchange. 
But  Proudhon  transposed  into  this  purely  empiric 
idea  a  moral  element,  by  presupposing  equality  and 
justice  as  necessary  to  exchange.  Economic  free- 
dom, he  reasons,  is  free  exchange ;  but  an  exchange 
can  only  be  called  free  which  presupposes  the  equal- 
ity of  values,  or,  in  other  words,  equality  and  jus- 
tice. This  again  presupposes  a  just  balance  and 
constitution  of  values — a  mutual  balance  of  all 
economic  and  social  forces.      What,  then,   is  eco- 


6o  Anarchism 

nomic  freedom  ?  It  is  equality  and  justice.  And 
what  is  the  opposite — the  hindrance  of  these  princi- 
ples ?  It  is  inequality,  injustice,  slavery,  which 
means  property.  This  is  the  reason  why  Proud- 
hon's  doctrine  of  property  stands  at  the  centre  of 
his  system,  which  it  by  no  means  exhausts ;  it  is  the 
reason  why  he  always  proceeded  from  this  point, 
and  always  returned  to  it  again.  Here  we  have 
clearly  the  reason  for  all  his  numberless  and  endless 
mistakes  in  the  province  of  economics,  the  weak 
point  of  this  otherwise  great  and  noble  mind.  As 
we  already  have  remarked  about  the  Contradictions, 
Proudhon  did  not  attack  property  in  itself;  he  tried 
to  ennoble  it  and  bring  it  into  harmony  with  the 
claims  of  justice  and  equality  by  taking  away  from 
it  what  to-day  is  z.jus  utendi  et  abutendi,  that  is,  its 
rights  over  the  substance  of  a  thing,  and  the  right 
of  devolving  it  for  ever.  The  ominous  statement 
"  Property  is  Theft  "  was  directed  only  against 
this.  This  kind  of  property  {proprie'te,  doniiniuni) 
was  to  be  replaced  by  individual  possession  {^posses- 
sion individuelle) :  as  to  which  one  must  take  care  to 
understand  the  distinction  between  "  property  " 
and  "  possession  "  in  the  legal  sense. 

Proudhon  sought  in  his  first  and  larger  work, 
which  is  mainly  of  a  critical  nature,  to  put  forward 
the  negative  proof  that  property  is  impossible,  by 
inverting  all  the  proofs  hitherto  brought  forward  in 
its  favour,  so  that  instead  of  justifying  the  possession 
of  property  they  seemed  rather  to  make  for  free- 
dom. It  is,  however,  quite  wrong  to  regard  this 
dialectic  jugglery  as  the  essence  of  Proudhon's  sys- 


Pierre  Joseph  Proudhon  6i 

tern.  A  proof,  such  as  that  here  proposed  by 
Proudhon,  is  not  only  quite  inadmissible  as  logic, 
but  it  cannot  even  be  said  that  Proudhon  himself 
(usually  so  accurate  in  this  respect)  turned  out  here 
a  really  good  piece  of  work.  On  the  one  hand  he 
attacks  the  defenders  of  property,  who,  after  all,  are 
not  very  difficult  to  controvert ;  while,  at  the  same 
time,  his  attempt  itself  does  not  always  succeed. 
Of  course  it  does  not  mean  very  much  when  he 
cleverly  riddles  the  old  argument  for  property  drawn 
from  divine  right  or  the  right  of  nature ;  for  in  any 
case  he  was  only  attacking  dead  theories.  In  the 
attack  on  really  living  arguments,  as  in  the  case  of 
his  theory  of  labour,  he  does  not  succeed. 

Property  cannot  be  explained  by  labour  because 
(i)  The  land  cannot  be  appropriated, 
(2)  Labour  leads  to  equality,  and  in  the  sight  of 
justice  labour,  on  the  contrary,  abolishes  property. 

The  proposition  that  property,  i.  e.,  the  right  to 
the  substance  of  the  thing  appropriated,  cannot  be 
created  by  labour,  because  the  land  cannot  be  ap- 
propriated, is  at  least  z.  petitio  principii  ox  tautology. 
But,  leaving  that,  let  us  suppose  that  the  land  really 
cannot  be  appropriated ;  yet  there  is  always  some 
kind  of  property  which  has  nothing  to  do  with  the 
land.  It  will  not  do  always  to  speak  of  landed 
property  only,  as  Proudhon  invariably  does.  Mov- 
able property  (in  weapons,  utensils,  ornaments, 
animals,  etc.)  precedes  immovable  property,  owing 
to  its  origin,  which  was  only  created  in  imitation  of 
the  other  much  later,  and  is  entirely  property  due 
to  work ;  thus  not  only  property,  but  not  even  the 


62  Anarchism 

origin  of  the  idea  of  property  in  men,  can  be  ex- 
plained from  the  point  of  view  of  social  history- 
otherwise  than  by  work. 

If  it  is  right,  as  one  of  our  most  acute  thinkers 
says,  to  declare  that  mankind  has  placed  his  tools 
between  himself  and  the  animal  world,  then  another 
proposition  follows  directly  from  this,  namely,  that 
man  has  placed  property  between  himself  and  ani- 
mals. It  is  true  that  the  animal  develops  as  far  as 
the  family,  for  if  this  also  is  founded  merely  upon 
thought,  it  cannot  be  a  conscious  one.  Property  pre- 
supposes a  definite  mental  equipment,  which  even  in 
the  case  of  primitive  men  must  be  important,  im- 
plying subjectively  an  already  clear  consciousness 
of  self;  objectively  a  certain  capacity  for  measuring 
even  the  remoter  consequences  of  an  action ;  for  the 
desire  for  special  possession  could  only  exist  with 
reference  to  a  pronounced  consciousness  of  the  self, 
and  to  the  recognised  purpose  and  further  utility  of 
an  object.  Neither  of  these  mental  presuppositions 
are  anywhere  fulfilled  in  the  animal  world.  It  need 
hardly  be  mentioned  that  labour  in  the  technical 
sense  has  developed  naturally  and  gradually  from 
physiological  labour  and  the  bodily  functions;  that 
is,  that  even  between  the  natural  implement  and 
the  artificial  there  is  no  hiatus. 

Kspinsis  says  {Antma/  Commumttes,  by  A.  Espinas, 
P-  338):  "  Every  living  being,  however  lonely  its 
life  may  be,  can  in  case  of  need  build  itself  some 
protective  covering,  and  that  is  the  beginning  of 
the  artistic  impulse  {Kunst-trieb)^  unless,  perhaps, 
this  is  to  be  found  in  the  formation  of  the  organism 


Pierre  Joseph  Proudhon  63 

itself.  Leaving  out  of  consideration  the  tubicolous 
annelidse,  the  mussels  and  stone-boring  molluscs,  the 
weaving  caterpillars,  and  finally  spiders,  even  the 
non-social  hymenoptera  present,  among  many  in- 
sects, examples  of  a  very  skilful  adaptation  of  ma- 
terials. But  it  is  equally  undeniable  that,  since  the 
appearance  of  communities  whose  purpose  is  the 
rearing  of  their  offspring,  the  artistic  tendency  re- 
ceives a  considerable  impulse  and  produces  unex- 
pected marvels.  Here  it  decidedly  abandons  its 
usual  procedure  in  order  to  take  up  a  new  one. 
Hitherto  the  lower  animals  have,  to  a  great  extent, 
taken  the  materials  for  their  places  of  refuge  and 
their  implements  from  their  own  bodies :  the  former 
an  extension  of  the  organism  that  produces  it  ;  the 
latter,  as  in  the  case  of  the  spider,  only  an  enlarge- 
ment of  the  animal  itself  which  forms  the  centre. 
The  productions  of  the  social  artistic  impulse,  on 
the  other  hand,  are  made  out  of  materials  which  are 
more  and  more  foreign  to  the  substance  of  the 
artificer,  and  are  worked  up  externally  by  means 
which  become  more  and  more  exclusively  mechan- 
ical. Hence  it  follows  that  the  living  body  is  no 
longer  so  directly  interested  in  the  preservation  of 
its  work;  it  can  alter  and  again  build  up  this  struct- 
ure to  an  almost  infinite  extent — in  short,  the 
structure  becomes  more  and  more  an  implement  in- 
stead of  an  organ.  That  was  the  inevitable  result 
of  animal  life,  which,  being  essentially  capable  of 
transference,  and  presupposing  an  intercourse  of 
several  separate  existences,  must  necessarily  raise 
itself  above  external  substances,   or   else   organise 


64  Anarchism 

them  according  to  the  purposes  of  its  life.  But 
must  we  now  conceive  its  operations  as  altogether 
distinct  from  those  of  physiological  life  ? 

"  If  one  reflects  that  unnoticed  steps  connect  the 
unconscious  work  which  produces  the  organ  with  the 
conscious  work  which  produces  the  implement,  then 
it  does  not  appear  so.  Speaking  exactly,  the  waxen 
cell  in  which  the  larvae  of  the  bee  wait  for  their  daily 
food  is  external  for  every  individual  of  the  race,  but 
internal  for  the  whole  of  the  community ;  since  this 
forms  one  single  consciousness,  or  a  collective  indi- 
viduality. The  mind  of  the  race  is  to  some  extent 
a  common  function,  its  body  a  common  apparatus ; 
the  one  is  only  the  material  translation  of  the  other, 
and  the  implement  performs  its  function  as  faith- 
fully as  does  the  organ.  One  might  even  go  farther 
and  maintain  that  the  implement  in  the  full  sense  of 
the  word  is  an  organ;  for  it  serves  a  function  that 
is  vital  for  the  community,  and  this  is  exposed  to 
every  change,  and  derives  benefit  from  every  growth 
which  circumstances  bring  to  it." 

The  work  of  animals,  therefore,  only  differs  in  its 
highest  developments  from  purely  physiological  func- 
tions, in  that  the  animal  becomes  more  independent 
of  its  implements  and  of  the  product  of  its  labour. 
Notice,  for  instance,  the  progress  which  is  shown  in 
the  series  of  the  mussel's  shell,  the  spider's  web,  the 
bee's  cell,  the  bird's  nest,  and  the  mole's  burrow. 
The  progressive  differentiation  of  the  products  of  la- 
bour keeps  step  with  the  progressive  individualisation 
of  the  labourer  and  with  the  growing  material  inde- 
pendence of  the  body  from  its  products.     Mussel 


Pierre  Joseph  Proudhon  65 

shell,  cobweb,  and  bee's  cell  are  still  produced  from 
the  secretions  of  the  body ;  but  while  the  mussel  is 
inseparable  from  its  shell,  the  spider,  at  least  with- 
out immediate  harm,  can  be  detached  from  its  web; 
while  the  bee  is  still  further  emancipated  from  its 
structure  of  cells.  The  bird's  nest  and  the  mole's 
burrow  have  been  formed  already  by  a  manipulation 
of  materials  foreign  to  the  body,  though  in  the  case 
of  the  first  still  by  the  help  of  secretions  from  the 
body.  In  both  cases  the  animal  is  almost  com- 
pletely independent  of  its  product.  Still  the  most 
complicated  product  of  animal  labour  is,  after  all, 
connected  inseparably  with  the  body  of  the  worker; 
and  to  a  much  less  extent  can  the  animal  be  separated 
from  its  implements ;  therefore  complete  emancipa- 
tion never  takes  place  in  the  animal  world. 

Even  in  the  case  of  the  anthropoid  apes  the  trans- 
ition to  the  instrument  and  to  a  product  of  labour 
entirely  artificial  and  perfectly  independent  of  the 
animal's  own  body,  is  only  very  slowly  completed. 
This  is  clear  from  a  consideration  of  the  slow  pro- 
cess by  which  man  has  progressed  in  perfecting  the 
implements  which  he  has  invented.  From  the  ac- 
tion of  the  bird  which  beats  open  a  nut  with  its  beak, 
or  the  squirrel  which  cracks  it  with  its  teeth,  up  to 
that  of  man  who,  in  order  to  open  the  nut,  makes 
use  of  a  stone  lying  near  him,  is  only  a  step,  and  yet 
by  that  step  the  destiny  of  the  genus  homo  is  settled. 
The  application  of  natural  objects,  such  as  sticks 
and  stones,  to  the  purposes  of  daily  life,  to  defence 
against  animals  and  men,  to  hunting,  to  cutting 
down  fruits,  and  so  on,  does  not  certainly  become  a 


66  Anarchism 

habit  all  at  once.  Indeed,  a  very  long  time  elapsed 
before  this  adaptation  became  a  general  and  even  a 
conscious  one,  and  it  was  only  possible  when  the 
advantages  of  such  objects  had  been  perceived 
through  many  experiences. 

It  needed  a  still  longer  time  before  man  learned 
to  choose  between  the  various  objects  offered  to  him 
by  nature,  and  understood  how  to  distinguish  a 
more  pointed  and  sharper  or  a  harder  stone  from 
one  of  those  less  useful  for  his  purpose.  Perhaps 
it  required  the  experience  and  disappointments  of 
uncounted  ages  to  bring  the  consciousness  of  pur- 
pose even  up  to  this  point.  But  when  this  was  once 
done,  when  man  could  judge  as  to  the  usefulness 
of  the  implement  which  nature  offered  him,  then  a 
further  step  of  progress,  and  certainly  the  most  im- 
portant in  this  series  of  developments,  was  taken. 
To  natural  selection  follows  immediately  artificial. 
The  need  for  suitable  and  useful  implements  be- 
came more  general  and  greater,  and  at  the  same 
time  it  became  more  difficult  to  satisfy,  since 
nature  is  not  so  generous  with  objects  of  this  kind, 
and  (as  was  soon  seen)  only  very  few  substances 
united  all  these  qualities  which  hitherto  had  been 
recognised  as  necessary  or  useful.  But  by  this  time 
individuals  who  were  already  better  provided  for 
had  made  other  discoveries ;  they  had,  for  example, 
in  cracking  a  nut,  broken  a  stone  with  which  they 
cracked  it,  and  noticed  that  the  broken  pieces  had 
greater  sharpness  and  pointedness  on  their  edges 
than  those  which  nature  afforded  ;  or  they  had  found 
the  pieces  of  some  tree  split  by  lightning,  and  dis- 


Pierre  Joseph  Proudhon  67 

covered  their  greater  hardness  and  capacity  for  re- 
sistance. What  was  more  natural  under  the  pressure 
of  the  necessity,  than  to  produce  intentionally  those 
processes  by  which  the  objects  afforded  by  nature 
became  more  usable — to  break  the  stone  in  pieces 
or  to  burn  the  wood  ? 

And  now  at  last  the  artificial  implement  was  pro- 
duced, and  all  future  progress  was  but  a  trifle  com- 
pared to  the  development  which  had  gone  before. 
The  wonders  of  modern  technical  art  are  child's- 
play  compared  to  the  difficulties  with  which  the 
anthropoid  ape  succeeded  in  making  the  first  stone 
celt.  The  most  urgent  need  of  primitive  life,  the 
bitterest  competition  for  the  necessities  of  existence, 
and  the  concentration  of  the  highest  mental  gifts 
then  possessed,  were  necessary  to  guide  the  sight  of 
primitive  man  to  the  remoter  consequences  of  an 
action  or  of  a  quality.  That  his  sight  became 
sharper  and  sharper  in  proportion  as  the  imple- 
ment once  invented  showed  itself  to  be  insufficient, 
and  became  more  and  more  differentiated  in  its 
adaptation  to  the  different  kinds  of  labour,  follows 
as  a  matter  of  course.  But  the  decisive  action  oc- 
curred when  the  anthropoid  ape  for  the  first  time 
mechanically  worked  up  natural  objects,  for  by  doing 
so  he  was  enabled  to  exploit  nature  rationally, 
according  to  his  desires  and  requirements,  to  eman- 
cipate himself  from  the  limitations  of  existence  as 
regards  place  and  climate,  to  break  those  chains  of 
partial  action  which  weigh  upon  everything  belong- 
ing to  the  animal  world. 

One  must  take  fully  into  consideration  the  diffi- 


68  Anarchism 

culties  under  which  primitive  man  made  his  first 
tools ;  but  one  must,  however,  realise  still  more  the 
immeasurable  advantages  which  proceed  from  the 
possession,  and  the  disadvantages  which  arise  from 
the  want,  of  a  tool,  in  order  to  perceive  that  man 
had  a  vital  interest  in  preserving  permanently  by  him 
the  objects  which  he  had  produced.  If  in  his  inex- 
perience he  at  first  threw  away  his  laboriously 
acquired  treasure  after  using  it,  yet  soon  the  oft-re- 
curring need  for  it,  and  the  trouble  of  remaking  it, 
must  have  taught  him  better.  And  by  not  leaving 
the  tool  behind  him  for  someone  else,  he  made  not 
only  a  tremendous  step  in  advance  in  the  satisfac- 
tion of  his  needs,  but  also  took  a  step  higher  in  the 
social  scale  of  his  tribe.  The  others  had  need  of 
him,  admired  him,  feared  or  flattered  him;  they 
perhaps  sought  to  take  his  treasured  tool  away  from 
him ;  he  had  therefore  to  defend  himself  against 
others,  and  all  these  facts  formed  still  more  strongly 
the  desire  to  keep  it  for  himself  permanently  and 
exclusively.  The  conception  of  property  flashed 
upon  the  human  mind.  It  sprang  from  the  sweat 
of  labour;  and  human  culture  begins  not  with 
equality  but  with  property. 

This  rather  lengthy  digression  has  been  necessary 
in  order  that  we  may  be  able  to  oppose  actual  facts 
to  the  logical  subtlety  of  Proudhon,  which  appears 
to-day  to  have  a  greater  power  than  ever  of  leading 
men  astray.  The  question  whether  the  producer  of 
a  stone  celt  was  merely  the  user  of  its  advantages 
(Latin,  possessor)  or  its  actual  owner  and  master; 
whether  he  also  had  the  right  to  the  substances  of 


Pierre  Joseph  Proudhon  69 

which  it  was  composed,  appears,  after  what  we  have 
said  above,  to  be  simply  childish.  The  property, 
which  was  absolutely  labour-property,  was  at  once 
perceived  to  be  such,  to  be  dominium  and  not  merely 
possessio ;  it  never  occurred  to  anybody  either  to 
doubt  it  or  to  believe  it.  Now,  Proudhon  declares 
that  general  consent  cannot  justify  property,  be- 
cause general  consent  to  an  injustice  cannot  form 
the  basis  of  justice.  But  apart  from  the  fact  that 
the  innate  sense  of  justice  in  society  is  merely  a 
fiction  of  Proudhon's,  as  of  all  earlier  or  later  Uto- 
pians, this  proposition  may  perhaps  belong  to  meta- 
physics or  ethics,  but  certainly  not  to  the  empirical 
science  of  sociology.  For  he  who  puts  on  the 
crown,  and  whom  all  agree  to  obey,  is  really  king, 
even  if  he  has  waded  to  the  throne  through  seas  of 
blood.  The  question,  in  so  far  as  it  is  neither 
political  nor  a  justification  of  his  mode  of  action,  is 
not  a  legal  one  but  purely  ethical.  The  answer  to 
this  question  prejudges  nothing  either  as  to  life  or 
society,  and  history  knows  cases  enough  of  actions 
which  cannot  be  approved  from  the  moral  stand- 
point, and  yet  have  turned  out  to  the  advantage  of 
the  community. 

The  opinion  that  agrarian  communism,  or  the 
village  community,  is  the  most  primitive  form  of 
property  and  the  natural  form  of  society,  is  also 
quite  untenable.  In  the  first  place,  because  the 
word  naturally  cannot  be  taken  in  the  sense 
that  it  implies  an  unalterable  normal  condition,  or 
something  fixed;  for,  in  reality,  naturally  means 
that  which  develops  itself,  and  therefore  something 


70  Anarchism 

in  the  highest  degree  changeable.  In  the  second 
place,  because  tribal  communism  is  by  no  means 
such  a  primitive  condition  as  the  Socialists,  from 
Rousseau's  time  downwards,  seem  to  believe,  and 
wish  to  make  others  believe.  Rather,  a  state  pre- 
ceded it,  in  which  only  movable  property,  the  jus 
utendi  atque  abutendi  re,  was  known  to  man.  Races 
have  been  found  which  possess  very  scanty  concep- 
tions of  religion,  which  have  not  recognised  the 
family  in  the  widest  implication  of  the  idea; 
whereas,  on  the  other  hand,  no  race  has  been  found 
to  whom  the  idea  of  property  was  not  known. 
Certainly  in  this  case  it  was  only  a  question  of  the 
possession  of  weapons  and  ornaments,  and  so  forth ; 
possession  of  land,  especially  as  a  communal  posses- 
sion, has  only  been  found  among  a  comparatively 
small  number  of  primitive  peoples,  and  implies  a 
very  advanced  state  of  social  culture.  But,  how- 
ever little  this  condition  is  the  natural  one,  nar* 
e^bxv^f  still  less  is  it  particularly  moral  or  just. 

We  know  to-day  for  certain  that  the  rise  of  com- 
munal possession  in  land  was  always  inseparably 
connected  with  the  introduction  of  slavery,  and  that 
one  cannot  be  thought  of  without  the  other.  But 
to  wish  to  imagine  equality  in  addition  to  the  col- 
lective possession  of  primitive  society  is  to  a  great 
extent  a  distortion  of  the  facts  of  history.  What- 
ever facts  we  may  produce  from  the  actual  and  not 
merely  imaginary  primitive  history  of  property 
would  be  so  many  arguments  against  Proudhon's 
contention.  His  economic  argument  is  just  as  un- 
tenable, that  labour  should  lead  to  equality.     All 


Pierre  Joseph  Proudhon  ii 

work,  according  to  Proudhon,  is  the  effective  of  a 
collective  force,  which  is  equal  to  the  resultants  of 
the  forces  of  the  single  individuals  who  form  the 
labour  group.  Consequently,  the  product  of  labour 
is  the  property  of  the  whole  community,  and  every 
worker  has  an  equal  claim  to  it.  This  is,  briefly, 
the  argument  which,  from  premises  that  are  possibly 
correct,  draws  conclusions  that  are  entirely  false. 
Proudhon  gives  the  following  example:  "  Two 
hundred  grenadiers  placed  the  obelisk  of  Luxor  on 
its  pedestal  in  a  few  hours,  and  yet  we  do  not  be- 
lieve that  one  man  could  have  performed  the  same 
work  in  two  hundred  days.  The  collective  force  is 
greater  than  the  sum  of  individual  forces  and  indi- 
vidual efforts.  Therefore  the  capitalist  has  not  re- 
warded the  labourer  fairly  when  he  pays  wages  for 
one  day  multiplied  by  the  number  of  day-labourers 
employed  by  him." 

It  will  be  seen  that  Proudhon  here  proceeds  from 
the  assumption  that  the  value  of  a  product  of  a  labour 
is  a  firmly  established  and  easily  fixed  amount,  as 
John  Grey  and  Rodbertus  had  taught  before  him ; 
for  only  in  this  case  could  it  be  exactly  stated  how 
great  the  claim  is  which  belongs  to  a  labourer.  In 
fact,  the  characteristic  feature  of  Proudhon's  theory 
of  value  lies  in  his  endeavour  to  determine  and  fix 
values ;  that  is,  to  use  his  own  dialectic  jargon,  ac- 
cording to  the  synthetic  solution  of  the  antithesis  of 
value  in  use  and  value  in  exchange,  in  which  our 
economic  life  fluctuates.  Supply  and  demand,  con- 
sidered by  others  as  the  factors  which  regulate  and 
determine  value,  are  to  him  only  forms  which  serve 


72  Anarchism 

to  contrast  with  one  another  the  value  in  use  and 
value  in  exchange,  and  to  cause  these  values  to 
combine.  From  justice,  which  ought  to  be  the 
foundation  of  society,  he  concludes  the  necessity, 
and  from  general  obedience  of  life  to  law  the  pos- 
sibility, of  a  determination  of  values.  Even  this 
value,  thus  determined,  will  be  a  variable  amount,  a 
proportionate  figure,  similar  to  the  index  which  in 
the  case  of  chemical  elements  gives  their  combining 
weights.  "  But  this  value  will  none  the  less  be 
strictly  fixed!  Value  may  alter,  but  the  law  of 
values  is  unalterable ;  indeed,  the  fact  that  value  is 
capable  of  alteration  only  results  from  its  being  sub- 
ject to  a  law  whose  principle  is  essentially  fluctuat- 
ing, for  it  is  labour  measured  by  time."  {Contradic- 
tions, i.,  "  On  the  Theory  of  Value.")  Value  is  thus 
brought  into  consideration  within  the  community 
which  producers  form  among  themselves  by  means 
of  the  division  of  labour  and  exchange,  the  relation 
of  the  proportion  of  the  products  which  compose 
riches,  and  that  which  is  specially  termed  the  value 
of  a  product  is  a  formula  which  assigns  a  proportion 
of  this  product  in  coins  in  the  general  wealth. 

Leaving  out  of  the  question  the  moral  arrange- 
ment of  the  world,  which  even  here  has  contributed 
to  this  definition  of  double  meaning,  we  may  ask, 
how  is  this  formula,  which  assigns  in  coins  the  pro- 
portion of  the  product  in  the  general  wealth,  reck- 
oned ?  Proudhon  has  always  appealed  only  to  the 
realisation  of  the  idea  through  the  actual  circulation 
of  values  on  the  one  hand,  and  to  the  law-abiding 
character  of  nature  on  the  other.     Upon  the  point 


Pierre  Joseph  Proudhon        '    1'S 

of  "  realisation  "  we  shall  have  something  to  say 
later.  But  the  law-abiding  character  of  life  is,  how- 
ever, just  as  much  an  algebraical  expression  as  the 
"  proportion  of  the  product."  Supposing  both  are 
not  disputed,  what  follows,  then  ?  If  I  know  the 
exact  formula  for  the  direction  and  velocity  of  a 
projectile,  shall  I  now  be  able  to  protect  myself  from 
every  bullet  by  merely  getting  out  of  its  way  ?  The 
introduction  of  statistical  methods  into  the  general 
formula  for  special  values  Proudhon  has  himself 
excluded  as  incorrect.  The  question  settles  itself. 
Society  goes  on  of  its  own  accord — laissez  aller^ 
laissez  /aire — everything  remains  in  the  old  way. 
In  addition  to  this  mistake,  we  find  that  there  is  in 
Proudhon's  mind  great  confusion  with  regard  to  the 
two  ideas  of  time  of  labour  and  value  of  labour. 

"  Adam  Smith  takes  as  a  measure  of  value  some- 
times the  time  necessary  to  produce  a  commodity 
and  sometimes  the  value  of  labour,"  says  Marx  in 
his  celebrated  polemic  against  Proudhon.'  "  Ri- 
cardo  discovered  this  error  by  clearly  proving  the 
difference  between  these  two  modes  of  measurement. 
Proudhon,  however,  goes  even  farther  than  the 
error  of  Adam  Smith,  by  identifying  two  things 
which  Smith  has  only  brought  into  juxtaposition. 
To  find  the  right  proportion  according  to  which  the 
labourers  should  have  their  share  in  the  products  of 
their  labour,  or,  in  other  words,  to  determine  the 
relative  value  of  labour,  Proudhon  seeks  some  meas- 
ure for  the  relative  value  of  commodities.     To  de- 

'  Das  Elendder  Philosophie  :  An  Answer  to  Proudhon's  Philosophic 
4es  Blends.     Stuttgart,  1892  (German  ed.). 


74    "  Anarchism 

termine  the  measure  for  the  relative  value  of  com- 
modities he  cannot  invent  anything  better  than  to 
give  us  as  an  equivalent  for  a  certain  quantity  of  work, 
the  total  of  the  products  made  by  it ;  which  leaves 
us  to  suppose  that  the  whole  of  society  consists  of 
nothing  but  labourers,  who  receive  as  wages  what 
they  themselves  produce.  In  the  second  place,  he 
maintains  the  equal  value  of  the  working  days  of 
different  labourers  as  an  actual  fact ;  in  a  word,  he 
seeks  the  measure  for  the  relative  value  of  com- 
modities in  order  to  discover  the  equal  payment  of 
labourers,  and  assumes  the  equality  of  payment  as 
a  settled  fact,  in  order  to  proceed  to  search  for  the 
relative  value  of  commodities." 

If  we  turn  back  to  the  question.  What  is  property  ? 
we  find  this  confusion  of  ideas  is  answerable  for  his 
unsuccessful  attempt  to  prove  that  labour  must 
create  equality  and  annihilate  property.  Here,  too, 
the  equality  of  the  working  days  is  assumed,  and 
therefore  the  equality  of  wages  is  demanded.  But, 
then,  immediately  this  working  day  is  changed  into 
his  work  done  in  a  day  {tdche  sociale  journaliere). 
"  Let  us  assume,"  says  he,  "  that  this  social  day's 
work  amounts  to  the  cultivation  or  weeding  or 
harvesting  of  two  square  decametres,  and  the  mean 
average  of  all  the  time  necessary  for  these  amounts 
to  seven  hours.  One  labourer  will  finish  it  in  six 
hours;  another  in  eight  hours;  the  majority  will 
work  seven  hours ;  but  so  long  as  each  performs  the 
amount  of  work  required  of  him,  he  deserves  the 
same  wages  as  all  the  others,  however  long  he  may 
have  worked  at  it. ' '    Here  time  of  work  has  imper- 


Pierre  Joseph  Proudhon  75 

ceptibly  changed  into  quantity  of  work,  and  wages 
are  given,  not  according  to  the  measure  of  equal 
working  times  but  according  to  the  measure  of  equal 
performances.  Proudhon  here  seeks  for  a  solution 
by  saying  that  the  more  capable  workman,  who  per- 
forms his  day's  work  in  six  hours,  should  never  have 
the  right  to  usurp  the  day's  work  of  a  less  capable 
labourer,  under  the  pretext  of  greater  strength  and 
activity,  and  thus  rob  him  of  work  and  bread ;  it  is 
advantage  enough  derived  from  his  greater  capaci- 
ties that,  by  this  shortening  of  his  time  of  labour, 
he  has  greater  opportunity  to  work  for  his  own  per- 
sonal education  and  culture,  or  to  enjoy  himself, 
and  so  on.  But  Proudhon  must  be  driven  even 
from  this  last  corner  of  refuge  by  the  question, 
What  will  take  place  if  anyone  will  perform  only  the 
half  of  his  day's  work  ?  Proudhon  says:  "  That  is 
all  right  ;  obviously  half  of  his  wages  are  sufficient 
for  that  man.  What  has  he  to  complain  of  if  he  is 
rewarded  according  to  the  work  which  he  has  per- 
formed ?  and  what  does  it  matter  to  others  ?  In 
this  sense  it  is  right  and  proper  to  apply  the  text, 
'  to  each  according  to  his  work  ' ;  that  is  the  law  of 
equality. ' '  ' 

But  this  is  to  retract  all  along  the  line.  Proudhon, 
who  assumes  the  equality  of  all  working  days,  and 
has  made  it  the  basis  of  his  theory  of  value,  must 
now  admit  the  dependence  of  wages  upon  the  per- 
formance of  work,  and  admit  also,  although  reluct- 
antly, the  statement  of  St.  Simon,  "  to  each 
according  to  his  work,"  which  he  had  set  out  to 

'  Qu'est-ce  que  la  Propriety?  p.  I02. 


76  Anarchism 

refute.  He  ought  to  have  gone  still  farther  and 
said:  "  If  anyone  will  not  do  any  work,  what  hap- 
pens then  ?  Obviously  the  man  needs  no  wages ; 
why  should  the  others  then  trouble  about  it  ? — it  is 
the  law  of  equality."  But  what  becomes  then  of 
the  equality  to  which  work  was  said  to  lead  ? 
Further,  what  about  the  impossibility  of  proving 
the  right  of  property  through  work  ?  All  Proud- 
hon's  arguments  in  proof  of  the  impossibility  of 
property  are  mere  dialectic  sword-play  which  hardly 
anyone  takes  seriously.  Proudhon  does  not  even 
criticise  actual  circumstances,  but  proves  that,  follow- 
ing his  ideal  assumptions  (which  in  any  case  exclude 
property),  property  is  impossible. 

The  supposed  result  of  his  book  he  sums  up  in  the 
Hegelian  formula:  "  Communism,  the  first  form  and 
the  final  destiny  of  society,  is  the  first  terminus  of 
social  development,  the  thesis;  property,  the  con- 
tradictory opposite  to  communism,  forms  the  second 
terminus,  the  antithesis ;  it  remains  for  us  to  deter- 
mine the  third  terminus,  the  synthesis,  and  then  we 
have  the  required  solution.  The  synthesis  results 
necessarily  from  the  correction  of  the  thesis  by  the 
antithesis.  It  is  therefore  necessary  to  examine 
closely  its  peculiarities,  and  to  exclude  that  which 
there  is  in  them  hostile  to  society.  The  two  that 
remain  will,  when  united,  form  the  true  formula  of 
human  social  life."  ' 

Karl  Marx,  who  made  verj"  merry  over  Proud- 
hon's  dialectic,  thought  he  had  played  his  trump 
card  against  the  capitalistic  method  of  production 

*  Qu'est-ce  que  la  Propriety?  p.  202. 


Pierre  Joseph  Proudhon  Tj 

in  almost  the  same  way,  namely,  with  the  Hegelian 
proposition  of  the  negation  of  negation.  If  they 
both  explained  themselves  by  bringing  forward, 
besides  the  dialectic  proof,  also  an  historical  and 
economic  one  for  their  contentions,  the  answer  is 
that  historic  proof  cannot  be  brought  forward  for 
Proudhon's  synthetic  conception  of  property  or  for 
Marx's  method  of  production,  since  history  only 
concerns  itself  with  the  past  or  the  present ;  whereas 
such  conditions  as  they  imagine  exist  only  in  the 
future,  and  can  only  be  derived  from  the  past  or 
present  conditions  by  the  dialectic  method,  and 
only  can  be  assumed  as  hypotheses. 

This  standpoint  unites  Proudhon  and  Karl  Marx, 
the  Anarchists  and  the  Social  Democrats  ;  they 
both  call  each  other  Utopians,  and  both  are  right. 


Proudhon  in  his  book  upon  property  did  not 
answer  the  question  put  in  its  title.  What  is  Prop- 
erty ?  as  he  had  promised  in  the  introduction. 
From  his  statement  "  property  is  theft,"  which  was 
uttered  with  so  much  ^claty  and  of  which,  according 
to  his  own  account  at  least,  he  was  prouder  than  if 
he  had  possessed  all  the  millions  of  Rothschild — 
from  this  paradox  one  might  conclude,  and  certainly 
the  great  majority  of  his  readers  do  conclude  usually 
that  Proudhon  was  an  enemy  of  property  in  general. 
That  is  not  at  all  the  case.  "  What  I  have  been 
seeking  since  1840  in  defining  property,"  said  he 
much  later  (in  Justice,  i.,  p.  302),  "  and  what  I  wish 
to-day,  as  I  have  repeated  over  and  over  again,  is 


78  Anarchism 

certainly  not  abolition  of  property.  For  this  would 
be  to  fall  into  Communism  with  Plato,  Rousseau, 
Louis  Blanc,  and  other  opponents  of  property, 
against  whom  I  protest  with  all  my  strength.  What 
I  demand  from  property  is  a  balance. ' '  But  all  his 
life  Proudhon  was  unable  to  dispel  the  misunder- 
standing which  he  carelessly  brought  upon  his  doc- 
trine in  his  first  writing  by  a  talented  paradox.  We 
say  carelessly,  for  the  concluding  answer  which 
Proudhon  gives  to  the  question,  **  What  is  prop- 
erty ?  "  was,  even  in  his  first  work,  not  **  property 
is  theft  "  but  "  property  is  liberty;"  only  the  use 
of  all  his  great  scientific  apparatus  was  quite  super- 
fluous, because  it  was  in  no  way  connected  with  the 
chief  purpose  of  his  book.  Proudhon  might  just  as 
well  have  placed  the  supposed  conclusion,  the  Ten 
Commandments  of  his  economic  doctrine,  at  the 
beginning  of  his  book,  for  they  were  arrived  at  not 
by  the  method  of  science  but  of  speculation.  These 
Ten  Commandments  run: 

(i)  Individual  possession  is  the  fundamental  con- 
dition of  social  life;  five  thousand  years  of  the 
history  of  property  prove  it ;  property  is  the  suicide 
of  society.  Possession  is  a  right  ;  property  is 
against  all  right;  suppress  property  and  maintain 
possession,  and  you  would  by  this  one  main  altera- 
tion transform  everything — laws,  government,  econ- 
omy, statesmanship ;  you  would  make  evil  disappear 
from  the  earth. 

(2)  Since  the  right  of  occupation  is  the  same  for 
all,  possession  changes  according  to  the  number  of 
possessors ;  thus  property  can  no  longer  be  created. 


Pierre  Joseph  Proudhon  79 

(3)  Since  the  result  of  labour  remains  the  same 
for  the  whole  of  the  community,  property,  which 
arising  from  the  exploitation  of  others  and  from 
rent,  disappears. 

(4)  Since  every  human  work  necessarily  arises  from 
a  collective  force,  every  piece  of  property  becomes 
both  collective  and  indivisible — to  be  exact,  labour 
annihilates  property. 

(5)  Since  every  capacity  for  any  occupation,  in- 
cluding all  the  instruments  of  labour  and  capital,  is 
collective  property,  the  inequality  of  treatment  and 
of  goods,  which  rests  upon  the  inequality  of  capabili- 
ties, is  injustice  and  theft. 

(6)  Trade  necessarily  presupposes  the  freedom  of 
the  contracting  parties  and  the  equivalence  of  the 
products  exchanged ;  but  since  value  is  determined 
by  the  amount  of  time  and  expense  which  each  pro- 
duct costs,  and  since  freedom  is  inviolable,  the 
workers  remain  necessarily  equal  in  reward  as  also 
in  rights  and  duties. 

(7)  Products  are  only  exchanged  again  for  pro- 
ducts ;  but  since  every  bargain  presupposes  the 
equality  of  products,  profit  is  impossible  and  un- 
just. Take  heed  to  this,  the  first  and  the  most 
elementary  principle  of  economics,  and  pauperism, 
luxury,  servitude,  vice,  crime,  and  hunger  will  dis- 
appear from  our  midst. 

(8)  Men  are  already,  before  they  fully  agreed  to 
do  so,  associated  from  the  physical  and  mathemati- 
cal law  of  production ;  the  equality  of  external  con- 
ditions of  existence  is  thus  a  demand  of  the  justice 
of  social  right,  of  strict  right;  friendship,  respect, 


8o  Anarchism 

admiration,  and    recognition   alone  enter   into  the 
province  of  equity  or  proportion. 

(9)  Free  association,  or  freedom  which  limits  itself 
to  expressing  equality  in  the  means  of  production 
and  equivalence  in  articles  of  exchange,  is  the  only 
possible,  the  only  right,  and  the  only  true  form  of 
society. 

(10)  Politics  is  the  science  of  freedom ;  the  govern- 
ment of  men  by  men,  under  whatever  name  it  may 
be  concealed,  is  servitude;  the  highest  consumma- 
tion of  society  is  found  in  the  union  of  order  and 
anarchy. 

We  will  only  select  from  this  Decalogue  of  Col- 
lectivist  Anarchism  one  dogma,  the  seventh  ;  because 
it  contains  a  fundamental  error  of  Proudhon's,  which 
must  continually  produce  other  errors.  "  Products," 
he  says,  "  are  only  exchanged  for  products  ;  but 
since  every  bargain  presupposes  the  equality  of  pro- 
ducts, profit  is  impossible  and  not  right."  By  this 
proposition  the  question  of  pauperism  and  every- 
thing evil  is  to  be  solved,  and,  in  fact,  Proudhon 
even  made  some  attempts  to  realise  the  theory  con- 
tained therein.  But  that  every  bargain  presupposes 
the  equality  of  products  in  any  other  than  the  sense 
determined  by  supply  and  demand,  is  untrue;  yet 
even  this  equality  is  not  regarded  by  Proudhon  as 
such.  He  understands  thereby  equivalence  or  the 
equality  of  values,  which  again  is  determined  by  the 
time  of  labour,  and  accordingly  he  makes  it  a  pre- 
supposition of  a  free  bargain  that  only  products 
which  represent  equal  times  of  labour  can  be  ex- 
changed.    Thus  a  hat   which    took   six   hours   to 


Pierre  Joseph  Proudhon  8i 

make,  should  be  exchanged  for  a  poem  which  was 
written  in  the  same  time.  And  if  we  are  startled 
by  the  incorrectness  of  this  assumption,  what  can  be 
said  for  the  converse  of  this  statement,  namely,  that 
products  of  equal  value,  i.  e.,  such  as  represent 
equal  times  of  labour,  must  be  accepted  at  any  time 
in  place  of  payment,  just  as  money  is  accepted  to- 
day ?  Proudhon  ascribed  the  utility  of  money  as  a 
universal  medium  of  exchange  to  the  supposed  cir- 
cumstance that  its  value  was  fixed  or  established, 
and  concluded  therefrom  that  whenever  the  value  of 
"other  commodities  was  determined,  they  would  have 
the  same  utility  as  money;  thus,  that  it  would  be 
possible  to  exchange  at  any  time  a  watch  which  rep- 
resented three  days'  work  for  a  pair  of  boots  which 
had  been  made  in  the  same  time.  And  to  complete 
this  economic  and  logical  confusion,  Proudhon  once 
again  inverts  history,  and  makes  the  just  and  free 
exchange  of  products  and  the  circulation  of  values 
the  starting-point  for  the  determination  of  values, 
and  thereby  also  the  foundation  of  his  realm  of 
justice,  freedom,  and  equality,  in  which  economic 
forces  have  free  play. 

If  values  circulate  themselves,  then  too  they  deter- 
mine themselves,  and  thus  only  is  there  a  just 
bargain ;  profit  is  impossible,  so  too  is  the  accumula- 
tion of  capital  and  property.  Since  all  have  equal 
share  in  production  as  in  consumption,  commodities 
will  always  be  where  they  are  needed,  and  they  will 
always  be  needed  where  they  exist ;  supply  and 
demand  will  equal  one  another,  value  in  use  and 
value  in  exchange  will  be  the  same,  value  is  deter- 

6 


82  Anarchism 

mined,  and  the  circle  (which  is  in  any  case  a  vicious 
circle)  is  completed.  Land,  like  all  the  means  of 
labour,  is  a  collective  possession.  Every  one  will 
enjoy  the  full  results  of  his  labour,  but  no  one  will 
be  able  to  heap  up  riches  because  profit  in  any  form 
is  impossible.  Men  will  collect  through  their  own 
free  choice  in  productive  groups,  which  again  will  be 
in  direct  intercourse  one  with  another,  and  will  ex- 
change their  products  as  may  be  required,  without 
profit.  Common  interests  will  be  determined  by 
Boards  of  Experts,  who  will  be  chosen  by  the  mem- 
bers of  these  groups  by  means  of  universal  suffrage. 
The  total  of  all  these  boards,  which  are  completely 
autonomous,  forms  the  only  existing  and  only  pos- 
sible administration.  Governments  become  super- 
fluous, since  the  economic  life  must  entirely  absorb 
political  life.  And  since  there  will  be  no  property 
and  no  distinction  of  rich  and  poor,  there  will  also 
be  no  rule  of  one  man  over  another,  there  will  be  no 
criminals,  judicial  and  civil  power,  militarism  and 
bureaucracy  become  superfluous  and  disappear  of 
themselves.  In  spite  of  anarchy  (/.  e.,  no  govern- 
ment), or  rather  because  of  it,  the  greatest,  the  only 
order  will  prevail. 

In  fact,  if  anything  ever  deserved  the  name  ideal 
it  is  this  reform  of  society  sketched  by  Proudhon, 
to  which  he  himself  has  given  the  name  "  Mutual- 
ism." He  did  not  suspect  or  notice  that  he  had 
done  nothing  more  than  express  the  abstract  formula 
of  existing  relationships,  the  most  general  conception 
of  the  liberal  scheme  of  economics.  Things  happen 
in  our  own  world  just  as  Proudhon  wished  in  his 


Pierre  Joseph  Proudhon  83 

kingdom  of  the  future,  only  there  are  a  few  insignifi- 
cant factors  of  friction,  extensions  of  co-efficients,  and 
so  on,  which  he,  if  he  had  been  famihar  with  scien- 
tific methods,  would  have  added  as  "  corrections  " 
to  his  universal  formula.  The  present  world  is 
related  to  his  as  any  one  triangle  is  to  the  triangle 
absolute.  The  triangle  which  is  neither  obtuse- 
angled,  nor  acute-angled,  nor  right-angled,  neither 
equilateral  nor  isosceles,  nor  of  unequal  sides,  whose 
sides  and  angles  are  not  confined  to  any  particular 
measurement,  may  certainly  be  a  real  triangle  and 
contain  no  contradiction  in  itself  (which  is  by  no 
means  the  case  in  Proudhon's  realm  of  justice),  but 
this  triangle  cannot  be  drawn  or  even  imagined. 
This  is  the  old  dispute  of  nominalists  and  realists,  a 
piece  of  scholasticism  long  since  obsolete  applied  to 
the  problems  of  modern  society,  and  not  even  worth 
refutation,  least  of  all  worthy  of  any  man  who  has 
once  correctly  recognised  the  reality  of  human 
society,  and  made  it  the  guiding  motive  of  his 
thought. 

On  two  occasions  Proudhon  seemed  to  have  the 
alluring  opportunity  of  being  able  to  realise  his 
Utopian  visions.  The  first  was  in  the  time  of  the 
Revolution.  In  February,  1849,  ^^  founded  the 
People's  Bank  {Banque  du  Peuple),^  which  was  to 
take   the  initiative  in  free  economic  organisation, 

'  After  Proudhon's  paper,  Le  R^prSsentant  du  Peuple,  had  published 
the  statutes  of  the  Exchange  Bank,  he  tried  in  numerous  articles  to 
explain  the  mechanism  and  necessity  of  it.  These  articles  have  been 
collected  in  a  book,  and  appeared  under  the  title,  Risumi  de  la 
Question  Sociale,  Banque  d'^change. 


84  Anarchism 

and,  according  to  Proudhon's  expectations,  would 
have  introduced  "  free  society  "  if,  at  the  decisive 
moment,  he  had  not  been  sent  for  three  years  to  the 
prison  of  Saint  Pelagic  for  a  political  offence,  and 
the  Bank  was  therefore  compelled  to  liquidate.  The 
second  opportunity  occurred  in  the  year  1855.  Na- 
poleon had  asked  for  opinions  as  to  how  the  Palais 
de  V Industrie,  in  which  the  Paris  Exhibition  had 
been  held,  could  be  used  after  its  close  as  an  institu- 
tion of  public  utility.  Among  those  to  whom  this 
question  was  addressed  we  find  Proudhon,  who 
answered  it  with  the  project  of  a  permanent  exhibi- 
tion,' which  was  to  be  conducted  by  a  society  pro- 
ceeding from  very  much  the  same  point  of  view  as 
the  People's  Bank.  This  project  was,  of  course, 
left  unnoticed,  and  Proudhon  became  deeply  dis- 
gusted and  discouraged  at  this  new  disappointment. 
The  People's  Bank,  like  its  subsequent  second 
edition,  the  Permanent  Exhibition  Company,  was 
to  be  founded  (in  Proudhon's  Hegelian  method  of 
expression)  upon  the  identity  of  the  shareholders 
and  their  clients.  The  producers  who  had  a  share 
in  the  People's  Bank  were  to  deliver  their  products 
to  the  bank,  which  would  control  and  determine  the 
prices  of  those  commodities  by  assessors,  the  prices 
being  determined  only  with  reference  to  the  time  of 
labour  spent  upon  them  and  the  necessary  expenses 
of  production ;  profit  was  forbidden  since  the  bank 
was  not  to  operate  upon  its  own  account.  The 
producer  received  upon  delivery  of  his  goods  "  ex- 
change bonds, "  in  return  for  which  he  then  could 
'The  scheme  appeared  in  Proudhon's  posthumous  works. 


Pierre  Joseph  Proudhon  85 

take  from  the  bank  other  commodities.  As  the 
bank  also  granted  its  customers  loans  without  charg- 
ing interest,  money  and  interest  would  become 
unnecessary,  trade  would  gradually  be  carried  on 
only  by  means  of  the  bonds  of  the  bank,  and  thus 
would  be  brought  about  the  harmony  of  social  inter- 
course of  which  Proudhon  dreamed. 

The  Permanent  Exhibition  Company  was  to  be  a 
new  edition  of  the  People's  Bank,  perfected  and 
enlarged  in  every  direction.  Since  the  shareholders 
of  this  company  consisted  of  producers,  and  their 
purpose  was  above  all  the  sale  and  interchange  of 
products,  so  therefore  the  subscription  for  the  forma- 
tion of  the  capital  was  not  to  be,  as  in  the  case 
of  other  companies,  merely  in  money,  but  was  to  be 
nine-tenths  in  products,  which  were  to  be  sold  by 
the  company,  and  the  receipts  of  the  sale  were  then 
to  be  credited  to  the  shareholders.  As  the  State 
was  to  become  surety  for  the  interest  on  these 
shares,  Proudhon  thought  that  these  must  become 
actual  money,  representing  rights  to  dividend, 
which  could  only  lose  their  value  by  the  destruction 
of  the  company's  depot  for  goods.  Against  the 
goods  which  were  deposited  with  it  or  the  sale  of 
which  it  undertook,  as  well  as  against  the  bills 
which  were  given  to  it  to  discount,  the  company 
was  to  issue,  together  with  the  cash  which  it  had  at 
disposal,  general  bonds  of  exchange  {la  bons  g^n^- 
raux  d' ^change)  which  would  represent  the  goods 
stored  in  it  and  realised  by  it,  and  should  give  the 
claim  to  an  equal  value  in  goods  which  the  holder  of 
the  bond   could  take  from  the  storehouses  as  he 


86  Anarchism 

wished.  These  bonds  were  to  be  the  circulating 
money  of  the  company,  and  were  to  be  accepted  by 
it  instead  of  cash  payments  in  all  transactions  with 
goods  or  with  bills.  The  circulating  paper  of  the 
company,  held  by  it  at  par,  owing  to  the  fact  that 
it  could  be  exchanged  into  money  or  the  goods  of 
the  company  upon  presentation,  would  become  the 
great  lever  of  its  operations  and  the  irresistible 
instrument  of  its  power.  The  company  was  to 
undertake  banking  and  commission  business  of  all 
kinds,  grant  credit  in  money  and  goods,  and  sup- 
port industry,  trade,  and  agriculture. 

All  objects  deposited  with  this  society,  including 
gold  and  silver,  and  especially  all  articles  composing 
its  balance,  were  to  be  arranged  in  an  exchange  tariff, 
which  would  be  continually  changeable,  and  the 
object  of  which  was  to  secure  the  equivalence  of 
values.  "  Certainly  every  rise  in  the  exchange  of 
an  article  would  be  balanced  by  an  equivalent  fall 
of  exchange  in  one  or  more  articles,  if  one  regards 
the  existing  total  sum,  one-tenth  being  allowed  in 
fluctuations  either  up  or  down.  The  differences  in 
time  in  the  balance  would  be  entered  in  a  special 
balance  book  which  would  finally  equalise  itself  from 
time  to  time." 

That  is  the  project ;  and  its  author  gives  the  fol- 
lowing example :  Since  the  company  carries  on  no 
business  on  its  own  account,  and  neither  acquires 
nor  possesses  products  itself,  and  thus  does  not  lose 
money  on  the  rise  or  fall,  it  is  only  guided  in  direct- 
ing the  course  of  prices  by  one  object,  viz.,  to 
moderate  one  by  the  other,  and  to  create  a  per- 


Pierre  Joseph  Proudhon  87 

manent  and  a  daily  compensation ;  thus,  if  demand 
arises  for  one  product  while  it  falls  off  for  one  or 
several  others,  the  company  raises  the  price  of  the 
first  4  per  cent.,  and  at  the  same  time  lowers,  ac- 
cording to  the  quantity  of  the  first,  the  price  of  the 
other  in  such  a  way  that  the  compensation  is  as 
exact  as  possible.  Because  it  is  difficult  to  reach 
this  mathematical  exactitude,  a  certain  margin  is 
allowed,  which  again,  compensating  itself  from  time 
to  time,  never  can  amount  to  the  assets  of  the 
society.  If  we  assume,  for  the  sake  of  example, 
that  the  price  of  gold  has  fallen — that  is,  that  gold 
is  freely  offered,  while  silver  has  risen,  that  is,  is 
more  in  demand — the  company,  since  its  bills  are 
discounted  with  its  own  notes,  will  give  lOO  francs 
of  its  money  for  105  francs  of  gold,  equal  to  lOO 
francs  in  silver;  or,  to  express  myself  more  exactly, 
for  a  weight  of  gold  which  is  only  one-twentieth 
higher  than  five  twenty-five  franc  pieces,  and  the 
weight  of  silver  which  is  only  one-twentieth  lower 
than  twenty-five  franc  pieces.  From  this  compensa- 
tion no  profit  accrues  to  the  company ;  it  has  only 
intervened  with  its  own  money  in  order  again  to  re- 
establish equilibrium. 

From  this  process  of  compensation  carried  on  by 
the  company,  which  was  to  be  applied  in  like  man- 
ner to  all  products,  raw  materials  and  food  stuffs, 
and  so  on,  Proudhon  hoped  for  that  much  talked 
of  and  much  promising  fixity  of  values,  since  all 
products  would  (so  to  speak)  be  monetised  and  made 
into  money,  and  would  maintain  the  highest  degree 
of   circulating  power.     Branches  of   the    company 


88  Anarchism 

over  all  France  and  a  complete  public  administration 
were  to  complete  the  system,  which  should  have  as 
its  object  the  organisation  and  centralisation  of  ex- 
change of  products  in  return  for  products,  according 
to  the  formulae  of  J.  B.  Say,  with  as  little  money 
as  possible,  as  few  intermediaries  as  possible,  with 
the  least  possible  expense,  and  for  the  exclusive 
benefit  of  producers  and  consumers. 

It  hardly  need  be  observed  that  the  rise  and  pros- 
perity of  these  institutions  must  stand  or  fall  by  the 
correctness  of  the  assumption  of  fixed  values  and  of 
the  monetisation  of  all  products.  Proudhon's  op- 
ponents wished  to  make  out,  that  in  view  of  this 
knowledge  his  sudden  arrest  and  imprisonment  in 
Saint  P^lagie,  by  which  he  was  divested  of  all  re- 
sponsibility for  the  liquidation  of  the  company,  was 
not  altogether  unwished  for  by  him.  But  this  is 
contradicted  by  the  attempt  which  was  renewed  later 
on  to  realise  the  project  of  the  People's  Bank.  We 
have,  indeed,  no  cause  to  suspect  Proudhon's  good 
faith  in  the  matter ;  on  the  other  hand,  the  supposed 
originality  of  this  idea  of  his  is  all  the  more  open  to 
suspicion,  because  in  all  essential  particulars  it  re- 
minds us  too  closely  of  the  "  labour  paper  money  " 
of  Rodbertus  that  was  to  be  issued  by  the  State  after 
the  determination  of  values,  an  idea  with  which 
Proudhon's  economics  had  many  points  in  common. 
There  is  a  still  greater  similarity  between  Proudhon's 
projects  and  the  Boards  of  Trade  thought  of  by 
Bray  ten  years  before  the  beginning  of  the  People's 
Bank;  and  it  is  also  like  John  Gray's  Central  Bank. 


Pierre  Joseph  Proudhon  89 

In  later  years  Proudhon  not  only  outwardly,  owing 
either  to  compulsion  or  prudence,  renounced  all 
immediate  realisation  of  his  intentions,  but  even  be- 
came convinced  and  expressed  his  conviction  in  his 
work  upon  the  federative  principle  {Du  Principe  Fe'd- 
^ratif,  1852),  that  ordered  anarchy  was  an  ideal,  and 
as  such  could  never  be  realised,  but  that  nevertheless 
human  society  should  strive  to  attain  it  by  means  of 
federative  organisations,  as  he  had  sketched  it  in 
his  earlier  writings.  Even  in  this  period  of  mental 
maturity,  when  removed  from  political  agitation,  he 
remained  the  sworn  enemy  and  direct  opponent  of 
the  Communists,  and  wished  to  see  the  great  pro- 
blem of  the  best  arrangement  of  society  solved,  not 
by  universal  levelling  down,  but  by  the  general 
perfection  and  development  of  society ;  not  by  re- 
volution from  which  he  had  gained  nothing  but  dis- 
gust and  disillusionment,  but  by  evolution.  "  If 
ideas  will  rise  up,"  he  used  to  say,  "  then  even  the 
paving  stones  would  rise  up  themselves  if  the  Gov- 
ernment were  so  imprudent  as  to  wait  for  this." 

With  true  prophetic  insight  Proudhon  perceived 
the  fact  that  even  in  human  society  revolution  is 
everything;  with  a  clearness  of  vision  such  as  none 
before  him,  and  only  very  few  after  him,  have 
possessed,  he  always  insisted  upon  the  organic  char- 
acter of  human  society  and  the  natural  continuity 
between  animal  and  humaii  social  life ;  and  in  this 
lies  his  greatness,  which  will  never  be  diminished  by 
any  of  his  numerous  errors.  But  while  he  thus  with 
one  foot  for  the  first  time  trod  upon  the  ground  of 
ft  new  discovery,  with  the  other  he  stood  on  th^ 


90  Anarchism 

standpoint  of  social  philosophy  of  previous  cent- 
uries. He  could  neither  externally  nor  internally 
disassociate  himself  from  its  baseless  assumptions  of 
a  social  contract,  the  absolute  rights  of  man,  a  moral 
order  of  the  universe,  and  similar  ethical  views  of 
politics  ;  and  herein  lies  the  contradiction  upon 
which  his  great  mental  talents  were  shipwrecked. 
If  we  once  regard  human  society  as  Proudhon  did, 
as  something  real,  the  product  of  nature  which  is 
moved  and  develops  itself  according  to  the  laws  of 
the  rest  of  nature,  then  we  have  once  for  all  given 
up  the  right  to  mark  out  for  it  a  line  of  development 
determined  merely  by  speculation,  or  to  demand 
from  it  that  it  should  move  towards  any  particular 
goal,  however  well-intentioned  it  may  be.  A  breeder 
may  produce  in  his  pigeons  or  fowls  a  certain  kind 
of  feather  or  a  certain  form  of  pouting,  but  he  can- 
not change  the  pigeon  into  a  hen.  The  artificial 
selection  of  breeding  is  all  that  man  can  do  {pour 
corriger  la  nature)  against  the  free  progress  of 
natural  development.  This  is  not  so  insignificant 
as  one  may  be  inclined  to  believe  at  the  first  glance. 
The  latter  belongs  to  the  category  of  Ovid's  Meta- 
morphoses, and  of  that  Utopian  social  philosophy 
which  began  with  Plato,  and  in  all  human  probabil- 
ity will  not  end  for  a  long  time.  Proudhon  wished 
to  unite  both,  one  with  another, — to  unite  water 
with  fire.  Like  all  Utopians,  he  desired — he  who  all 
his  life,  in  his  numerous  writings,  so  frequently 
confuted  and  sneered  at  them — that  the  human 
race  might  be  metamorphosed  in  order  to  accept 
unanimously  his  ideas  about  society.     For  that  the 


Pierre  Joseph  Proudhon  91 

men  of  his  day  were  not  fit  for  a  true  democracy — 
that  is,  for  anarchy — he  was  honest  enough  to  admit. 

"  Nothing  is  in  reality  less  democratic  than  the 
people,"  said  he,  occasionally,  and  he  did  not  allow 
himself  the  least  delusion  as  regards  their  slavish 
love  for  authority.  For  that  very  reason,  he  thought 
democracy  must  be  changed  into  "  demopaedy," 
and  a  complete  revolution  of  a  popular  spirit  must 
be  caused  by  education.  But  to  prove  that,  even 
with  the  help  of  democracy,  people  would  not  be 
ripe  for  pure  democracy,  or,  rightly  speaking,  for 
anarchy,  we  can  quote  an  authority  which  he  never 
doubted,  namely,  himself.  In  an  access  of  pessim- 
ism, he  said  once,  "  I  have  thought  I  have  noticed 
(may  philosophy  pardon  me  for  it !)  that  the  more 
reason  develops  in  us  the  more  brutal  becomes 
passion  when  once  it  is  let  loose.  It  appears  then 
that  the  angel  and  the  biped  brute  which  together 
compose  our  human  nature  in  their  intimate  union, 
instead  of  mingling  their  attributes,  only  live  side 
by  side  with  one  another.  If  progress  leads  us  to 
that,  of  what  use  is  it  ?  "  This  is  a  bad  look-out 
for  the  great  moral  revolution  upon  which  Proudhon 
more  and  more  based  all  his  hopes. 

Proudhon  has  had  the  most  varied  judgment 
passed  upon  him.  Some  have  treated  him  as  an 
obscure  pamphlet  writer.  Louis  Blanc  calls  him  a 
prizefighter  ;  Laveleye,  in  a  history  of  Socialism, 
only  considers  him  worth  mentioning  in  order  to 
call  his  ideas  "  the  dreams  of  a  raving  idiot  "  ;  Karl 
Marx  denies  him  either  talent  or  knowledge ;  many 
have  considered  him  as  a  Jesuitical  hypocrite ;  others, 


92  Anarchism 

again,  his  followers  and  representatives,  have  called 
him  the  greatest  man  of  the  century.  Ludwig  Pfau 
called  him  the  clearest  thinker  that  France  had  pro- 
duced since  Descartes.  But  the  spectacle  is  by  no 
means  new.  In  reality,  but  little  courage  and  wit 
are  to-day  needed  to  acquire  the  applause  of  an 
ignorant  multitude  which  has  no  idea  of  Proudhon's 
train  of  thought  by  the  condemnation  of  the  father 
of  Anarchism.  "  Justice  must  be  done  to  all,  even 
to  Louis  Napoleon,"  exclaimed  Proudhon,  to  the 
great  astonishment  orbis  et  urbis  after  the  coup 
d'etat ;  and  not  to  take  a  lower  standard  than  the 
father  of  Anarchism,  we  exclaim  also,  "  Justice 
must  be  done  to  all,  even  to  Proudhon." 

The  most  usual  reproach  which  is  cast  against 
Proudhon  is  that  he  is  contradictory  and  confused. 
This  reproof  is  generally  made  by  people  who  know 
no  more  about  Proudhon  than  the  paradox  "  Prop- 
erty is  Theft,"  and  from  this  one  expression  call 
him  confused  and  contradictory. 

Proudhon  saw  very  clearly  the  end  before  his 
eyes,  strove  to  attain  it  unfalteringly  and  steadily, 
and  amid  all  the  variety  of  the  developments  in 
which  he  preached  his  ideas  to  the  world  for  a 
quarter  of  a  century,  never  betrayed  one  iota  of  its 
contents.  The  contradiction  from  which  his  work 
suffered  lay  deeper.  It  lay  in  the  form  of  his 
thought,  and  partly  in  the  period  to  which  he  be- 
longed. Placed  on  the  boundary  line  between  two 
epochs  of  social  science  and  of  social  forms,  one  of 
which  is  marked  by  dogma  and  the  other  by  induc- 
tion, he  had  not  the  strength  to  break  completely 


Pierre  Joseph  Proudhon  93 

with  one  or  give  himself  up  completely  to  the  other. 
His  whole  life  and  thought  was  a  constant  fight 
against  dogma  in  every  from.  He  fought  against 
social  Utopianism  as  against  religious  dogmatism, 
and  fought  against  the  dogmatism  of  property  as 
against  political  authority ;  he  sought  to  transform 
Socialism  upon  severely  scientific  and  realistic  lines, 
and  to  free  it  from  all  the  fetters  of  dogmatic  re- 
ligion ;  and  yet,  just  as  Rousseau  did,  he  placed  at 
the  head  of  his  system  a  dogma:  "  Man  is  born 
free";  and  at  the  conclusion  of  it  the  teleological 
phrase  of  a  moral  order  of  society — two  propositions 
which  can  never  be  proved  by  experience,  but  rather 
contradict  all  experience. 

In  the  same  way  this  internal  contradiction  is 
shown  in  the  principal  work  of  his  last  period,  the 
Justice  dans  le  Revolution  et  dans  V Eglise,  in  which 
Proudhon  endeavours  to  show  these  two  separate 
worlds  in  their  marked  difference  one  from  another 
without  suspecting  that  he  himself  fluctuated  be- 
tween both. 

After  he,  as  a  logical  idealist,  had  denied  all  ex- 
ternal force  and  all  authority,  and  nevertheless  as  a 
realist  had  supported  society  as  the  unalterable 
condition  of  human  life  and  civilisation,  he  seeks  at 
the  same  time  to  save  anarchy  and  society  by  a  new 
bond  between  individuals  who  have  been  set  free 
and  find  this  in  some  internal  necessity  and  internal 
authority,  in  a  principle  which  acts  upon  the  will 
like  a  force,  and  determines  it  in  the  direction  of 
the  general  interest  independently  of  all  considera- 
tion of  self-interest. 


94  Anarchism 

And  so  the  man,  who  had  put  away  from  himself 
everything  of  an  absolute  and  a  priori  nature  because 
he  declared  a  purely  empirical  foundation  of  social 
science  to  be  the  source  of  all  immorality,  arrived 
at  the  assumption  of  an  innate,  immanent  justice  as 
the  first  principle  of  society  which  he,  with  the 
arbitrariness  of  a  catechism  writer,  declared  to  be 
"the  first  and  most  essential  of  our  faculties;  a 
sovereign  faculty  which,  by  that  very  fact,  is  the 
most  difficult  to  know,  the  faculty  of  feeling  and 
affirming  our  dignity,  and  consequently  of  wishing 
it  and  defending  it  as  well  in  the  person  of  others 
as  in  our  own  person." 

As  Proudhon,  in  spite  of  the  fact  that  he  was 
always  opposing  Utopianism,  nevertheless  fell  into 
the  chief  error  of  the  Utopians,  so,  too,  finally  he 
shared  the  destiny  of  Auguste  Comte,  upon  whom 
during  his  life  he  had  rather  looked  down.  Both 
had  started  with  a  sworn  antagonism  to  every  specu- 
lative foundation  of  social  philosophy,  and  both 
finally  adopted  a  deus  ex  machina  in  order  to  pre- 
serve the  world  that  was  falling  into  individual 
pieces  before  them  from  a  complete  atomisation. 
With  Comte  it  is  called  "  love,"  with  Proudhon 
"justice."  The  distinction  between  the  two  is 
somewhat  childish.  Both  perceived  the  standpoint 
of  evolution,  the  mechanical  conception  which  over- 
comes all  deviations,  without  assigning  to  it  the 
part  which  it  deserves.  One  may  safely  say  that  if 
Proudhon  had  been  brought  into  connection  with 
the  doctrine  of  evolution,  he  would  have  been  one  of 
the  leading  sociologists.     He  had  an  infinitely  keen 


Pierre  Joseph  Proudhon  95 

sense  of  the  most  secret  motions  of  the  social  soul, 
but  he  believed  that  he  might  not  approach  it 
lovingly  in  its  nudity  of  nature,  and  therefore  de- 
graded it  to  a  Platonic  idea,  after  having  affirmed 
its  utmost  reality.  This  was  an  action  like  that  of 
Kronos,  the  curse  of  which  never  departed  from  his 
thought. 

To  this  was  added  a  very  scanty  and  transitory 
acquaintance  with  political  economy  which  allowed 
the  practicability  of  his  ideas  to  appear  to  him  in  the 
easiest  light,  but  which,  when  he  was  opposed  to 
one  so  thoroughly  acquainted  with  it  as  Karl  Marx, 
placed  him  in  the  most  piteous  position. 

One  of  the  commonest  reproaches  which  is  made 
against  Proudhon,  and  which  is  partly  a  personal 
one,  refers  to  his  attitude  towards  Napoleon  III. 
In  the  little  political  catechism  which  is  found  in  his 
jfustice,  Proudhon  answered  the  question  "  Whether 
Anarchy  can  be  united  with  the  dynastic  principle," 
in  the  following  way:  "It  is  clear  that  France  till 
now  was  not  of  opinion  that  freedom  and  dynasty 
were  incompatible  ideas.  When  the  old  monarchy 
called  together  the  States  General  it  kindled  the 
Revolution.  The  constitution  of  1791  and  those  of 
1 8 14  and  1830,  proved  the  desire  of  the  country  to 
reconcile  a  monarchical  principle  with  the  demo- 
cracy. The  popularity  of  the  First  Empire  was 
one  argument  more  for  the  possibility  of  this  suppo- 
sition; the  people  believed  they  found  in  it  all  their 
preconceived  ideas,  and  apparently  surrender  was 
reconciled  with  progress.  Thus  men  satisfied  their 
habits  of  subjection  under  a  lordship,  and  their  need 


96  Anarchism 

for  unity ;  they  exercised  the  danger  of  a  president 
dictator  or  an  oligarchy.  When  in  1830  Lafayette 
defined  the  new  order  of  affairs  as  *  a  monarchy 
surrounded  by  republican  arrangements,*  he  per- 
ceived the  identity  of  the  political  and  economic 
order.  While  the  true  republic  consists  in  the 
equilibrium  of  forces  and  efforts,  people  pleased 
themselves  by  seeing  a  new  dynasty  hold  the  bal- 
ance and  guaranteeing  justice.  And  finally,  this 
theory  is  confirmed  by  the  example  of  England 
(although  equality  is  unknown  there),  and  by  the 
new  constitutional  states.  No  doubt  the  union  of 
the  dynastic  principle  with  that  of  freedom  and 
equality  in  France  has  not  produced  the  fruits  that 
were  expected  from  it,  but  that  was  the  fault  of 
Governmental  fatalism ;  the  mistake  was  made  just 
as  much  by  the  princes  as  by  the  people.  Although 
dynastic  parties  since  1848  have  shown  themselves 
by  no  means  friendly  to  revolution,  the  force  of 
circumstances  will  again  bring  them  to  it,  and  as 
France  at  all  stages  of  her  fortunes  has  always 
liked  to  give  herself  a  ruler  and  to  manifest  her  unity 
by  a  symbol,  so  it  would  be  exaggeration  to  deny 
even  now  the  possibility  of  a  restoration  of  the  dy- 
nasty. We  have  heard  Republicans  say,  '  He  will 
be  my  master  who  shall  wear  the  purple  robe  of 
equality,'  and  those  who  speak  thus  form  neither 
the  smallest  nor  the  least  intelligent  portion;  but  it 
is  also  true  that  they  did  not  wish  for  a  dictatorship. 
At  any  rate,  one  must  admit  that  there  are  no 
symptoms  of  a  restoration  in  the  near  future.  And 
what  makes  us  suppose  that  the  dynastic  principle 


Pierre  Joseph  Proudhon  97 

is,  at  least,  under  a  cloud,  is  the  fact  that  the  pre- 
tenders and  their  advisers  have  no  heart  for  the  affair. 
'  After  you,  gentlemen,'  they  appear  to  say  to  the 
Democrats.  But  after  the  democracy  there  will  not 
remain  much  for  a  dynasty  to  pick  up,  or  the  econo- 
mic equilibrium  would  be  false.  Non  datur  regnum 
aut  itnperium  in  ceconomics." 

This  certainly  reasonable  and  moderate  point  of 
view,  which  proceeds  from  the  perception  that  in 
an  organic  society  the  caprice  of  one  individual  can- 
not possibly  stop  or  disturb  the  course  of  the  social 
function,  and  that  king  or  emperor  accordingly  could 
at  most  be  a  symbol,  is  also  at  the  bottom  of  the 
book  on  social  revolution.  In  the  coup  d'etat  of  the 
2d  of  December,  Proudhon  only  saw  a  stage  of  the 
great  social  revolution,  the  manifestation  of  the  will 
of  the  people,  striving  in  the  direction  of  social 
equalisation  ;  although  perhaps  mistakenly,  and  chal- 
lenged Louis  Napoleon,  whose  coup  d'etat  he  had 
prophesied,  condemned,  and  sought  to  prevent,  to 
show  himself  worthy  of  public  opinion,  and  to  use 
the  mandate  given  him  by  destiny  and  by  the 
French  people  in  the  sense  that  it  was  entrusted  to 
him.*  Proudhon  probably  did  not  believe,  when  he 
was  writing  the  Sociale  Revolution,  by  any  means  too 
much  in  the  willingness  of  Napoleon  to  take  upon 
himself  such  a  mission  as  he  assigned  to  him.     The 

'  It  must  not  be  forgotten  that  the  people  expected  in  Louis 
Napoleon  "the  social  emperor,"  and  that  he  had  in  earlier  times 
played  upon  this  expectation.  Compare  his  work  on  The  Abolition 
of  Pauperism,  German  translation  by  R.  V.  Richard.  Leipsic,  1857. 
Volume  ii. 
7 


98  Anarchism 

language  of  the  book  is  in  any  case  very  reserved, 
and  there  is  no  trace  of  the  apotheosis  of  the  author 
of  the  coup  d'etat. 

Nevertheless  some  have  wished  to  represent  this 
as  Proudhon's  intention;  his  early  release  from  the 
prison  in  which  the  little  book  was  written  as  the 
immediate  effect,  and  as  being  the  thanks  of  the 
Emperor,  thus  representing  Proudhon  as  a  mercenary 
time-server.  But  this  is  not  in  accordance  with  the 
facts.  Proudhon  remained  in  his  imprisonment 
almost  till  the  very  last  day  of  his  sentence,  and  the 
attitude  of  the  authorities  towards  his  writings  after- 
wards does  not  seem  to  show  that  any  relationship, 
even  a  secret  one,  existed  between  Proudhon  and 
Napoleon.  Proudhon  might  write  what  he  liked,  it 
was  confiscated ;  in  vain  he  applied  for  permission 
to  be  allowed  to  issue  his  paper.  Justice;  a  book 
which  no  longer  showed  the  violence  of  his  youth 
brought  him  three  more  years'  imprisonment  again, 
which  he  only  escaped  by  a  rapid  flight  to  Belgium, 
and  in  the  general  amnesty  of  the  year  1859  he  was 
specially  excepted  from  its  conditions.  When  the 
Emperor  in  1861,  as  a  special  favour,  granted  him 
permission  to  return  home  before  the  proper  time, 
Proudhon  proudly  refused  this  favour,  much  as  he 
wished  to  be  in  Paris,  and  only  returned  there  at  the 
expiration  of  the  three  years'  period,  at  the  end  of 
1863.  These,  at  least,  are  no  proofs  that  the  author 
of  What  is  Property  ?  allowed  himself  to  be  brought 
over  by  the  man  on  the  2d  December.  But  Proud- 
hon was  not  to  breathe  the  air  of  his  native  land 
much  longer.     Broken  by  the  troubles  of  persecu- 


Pierre  Joseph  Proudhon 


99 


tion,  he  died,  after  a  long  illness,  on  the  19th  June, 
1865,  in  the  arms  of  his  wife,  who,  like  himself,  be- 
longed to  the  working  classes,  and  with  whom  he 
had  led  a  life  full  of  harmony  and  love. 


CHAPTER   III 

MAX   STIRNER  AND   THE   GERMAN  FOLLOWERS 
OF  PROUDHON 


Germany  in  1 830-40  and  France — Stirner  and  Proudhon — Biography 
of  Stirner —  The  Individual  and  his  Property  {Der  Einzige  und 
sein  Eigenthuvi) — The  Union  of  Egoists — The  Philosophic  Con- 
tradiction of  the  Einziger — Stirner's  Practical  Error — Julius 
Faucher — Moses  Hess — Karl  Grlin — Wilhelm  Marr. 

N  the  first  half  of  the  forties,  ahnost 
about  the  same  time,  but  completely 
independent  one  from  another,  there 
appeared,  on  each  side  of  the  Rhine, 
two  men  who  preached  a  new  revolu- 
tion in  a  manner  totally  different  from  the  ordinary 
revolutionist,  and  one  from  which  at  that  time  even 
the  most  courageous  hearts  and  firmest  minds  shrank 
back.  Both  were  followers  of  the  "  royal  Prussian 
Court  philosopher  "  Hegel,  and  yet  took  an  entirely 
different  direction  one  from  the  other:  but  both  met 
again  at  the  end  of  their  journey  in  their  unanimous 
renunciation  of  all  political  and  economic  doctrines 
hitherto  held  ;  in  their  thorough  opposition  to  every 
existing  and  imagined  organisation  of  society  upon 


Max  Stirner  loi 

whatever  compulsion  of  right  it  might  be  founded ; 
and  in  their  desire  for  free  organisation  upon  the 
simple  foundation  of  rules  made  by  convention  or 
agreement — in  their  common  desire  for  Anarchy. 

The  contemporaneous  appearance  of  Proudhon 
and  Stirner  is  of  as  much  importance  as  their,  in 
many  ways,  fundamental  difference.  The  first  cir- 
cumstance shows  their  appearance  was  symptomatic, 
and  raises  it  above  any  supposed  or  probable  out- 
come of  chance;  Stirner  and  Proudhon  support  each 
other  mutually  with  all  their  independence,  and  with 
all  their  difference  one  from  another.  As  to  this, 
it  cannot  be  denied  that  it  is  to  be  traced,  first  and 
foremost,  to  the  totally  different  environment  in 
which  the  two  authors  grew  up. 

Ludwig  Pfau,  in  a  talented  essay,  has  sought  to 
derive  the  literary  peculiarities  of  Proudhon  from 
the  Gallic  character  and  from  his  French  milieu. 
But  even  besides  the  purely  literary  aspect,  Proud- 
hon shows  all  the  gifts  and  all  the  weaknesses  of  his 
people  and  of  his  time ;  he  shares  with  all  French- 
men their  small  inclination  to  real  criticism,  but  also 
their  faculty  of  never  separating  themselves  from 
the  stream  of  practical  life ;  and  thus,  before  every- 
thing, we  perceive  in  Proudhon 's  earlier  works  a 
strong  tendency  towards  the  part  of  an  agitator. 
L,  Pfau  asserts  that  it  is  a  specific  peculiarity  of  the 
French  nation,  with  all  their  notorious  sentiment 
for  freedom,  "  to  discipline  their  own  reluctant  per- 
sonality, and  subject  it  to  the  common  interest"; 
and  therein  lies,  perhaps,  the  reason  why  Proudhon, 
although    an    enthusiastic    advocate    of    personal 


I02  Anarchism 

freedom,  never  wished  this  to  be  driven  to  the 
point  of  the  disintegration  of  collective  unity  and 
to  the  sacrifice  of  the  idea  of  society. 

Stirner  is  the  German  thinker  who  is  carried  away 
by  the  unchecked  flow  of  his  thoughts  far  from  the 
path  of  the  actual  life  into  a  misty  region  of  "  Cloud- 
cuckoo-land,"  where  he  actually  remains  as  the 
"  only  individual,"  because  no  one  can  follow  him. 
There  is  no  trace  in  Stirner's  book  of  any  intention 
of  being  an  agitator.  As  far  as  political  parties  are 
mentioned  in  it,  they  do  appear  as  such,  but  merely 
as  corollaries  of  certain  tendencies  of  philosophic 
thought.  Stirner  keeps  himself  even  anxiously 
apart  from  politics,  and  a  certain  dislike  to  them  is 
unmistakable  in  him.  All  parties  have  in  his  eyes 
only  this  in  common,  that  they  all  strive  to  actualise 
conceptions  and  ideas  which  lie  beyond  them, 
whether  these  be  called  God,  State,  or  humanity. 
Stirner  stands  in  the  same  relation  to  the  philosophic 
tendencies  of  his  own  and  earlier  times.  He  sees 
them  all  run  into  the  great  ocean  of  generality  the 
absolute,  nothingness.  The  distinction  between 
Saint  Augustine  and  L.  Feuerbach  is  for  him  purely 
a  superficial  and  not  an  essential  one  ;  for  the 
"  man  "  of  the  latter  is  as  foreign  to  him  as  the 
"  God  "  of  the  former.  And  so  Stirner  carries  his 
disinclination  to  politics,  as  being  inimical  to  the 
philosophy  of  his  time,  almost  to  disgust,  being 
herein  a  genuine  son  of  his  country  and  of  his  period. 

Upon  the  philosophic  exaltation  and  the  specula- 
tive "  foundation  period  "  of  the  beginning  of  the 
century  there  had  followed  a  severe  depression ;  to 


Max  Stirner  103 

the  over-eager  expectations  which  had  been  placed 
in  philosophy  there  followed  just  as  severe  a  disap- 
pointment ;  to  the  metaphysical  orgy  there  followed 
a  moral  headache,  which  might  be  designated  not 
inaptly  by  the  motto  which  Schopenhauer  gave  in 
mockery  to  Feuerbach's  philosophy,  so  well  suited 
to  his  time — 

"  Edite,  bibite,  coUegiales ! 
Post  multa  ssecula 
Pocula  nulla." 

The  political  attitude  of  the  forties  was  very  much 
the  same.  The  national  enthusiasm,  the  wars  of 
freedom,  and  the  sanguine  hopes  which  had  at- 
tended the  downfall  of  the  Corsican,  had,  like  the 
expectations  aroused  by  the  Revolutionists  of  the 
days  of  July,  ended  in  miserable  disaster.  The 
touching  confidence  which  a  nation,  all  too  naive  in 
politics,  had  placed  in  its  princes  had  been  shame- 
fully deceived  and  abused.  All  dreams  of  union  and 
freedom  seemed  to  be  extinguished  for  a  long  time, 
and  the  flunkeyism  which  was  unfortunately  only 
too  rampant  in  the  nation,  ran  riot,  while  frank  souls 
stood  aside  in  disgust.  The  more  eager  the  spiritual 
enthusiasm  had  been  on  the  threshold  of  two  cent- 
uries, the  deeper  now  did  apathy  weigh  upon  men's 
spirits  in  the  period  of  the  forties.  The  fuller  men's 
souls  had  been  of  surging  and  stormy  ideals,  and 
wishings  and  vague  longings  of  all  kinds,  the  emptier 
did  they  now  become,  and  not  only  Stirner  could 
with  justice  give  to  his  "only  individual"  the 
tnotto,  "  I  have  placed  my  all  on  nothing,"  but  it 


I04  Anarchism 

was  the  motto  of  all  Germany  at  that  time.  And 
yet  in  one  thing  Stirner  is  the  type  of  his  people  as 
contrasted  with  Proudhon.  He  is  the  most  complete 
example  of  the  German  who  lacks  that  proud  self- 
sacrificing  view  of  the  life  of  the  community,  that 
feeling  of  the  inseparability  of  the  individual  from 
the  mass  of  his  people — which  is  the  token  of  the 
French, — but  who  at  all  times  has  suffered  from  a 
separatism  that  destroys  everything.  He  is  the 
typical  representative  of  that  nation  to  whom  its 
best  sons  have  denied  the  capacity  of  being  a  nation, 
but  which  has  therefore  been  able  to  produce  more 
striking  individualities  than  all  other  civilised  nations 
of  the  time. 


Caspar  Schmidt — for  this  is  Stirner's  real  name ' — 
was  born  at  Baireuth  on  the  25th  October,  1806, 
and,  like  Strauss,  Feuerbach,  Bruno  Bauer,  and 
other  thinkers  of  the  same  kind,  devoted  his  time  to 
theological  and  philosophic  studies.  After  com- 
pleting these,  he  took  the  modest  position  of  a 
teacher  in  a  high  school,  and  in  a  girls'  school  in 
Berlin.  In  1844  there  appeared,  under  the  pseudo- 
nym "  Max  Stirner,"  a  book  called  The  Individual 

^  Stirner's  chief  work,  The  Individual  and  his  Property  {Der 
Einzige  und  sein  Eigenthum,  Leipsic,  1845),  has  been  reprinted  by 
P.  Reclam,  at  Leipsic,  with  a  good  introduction  by  Paul  Lauterbach. 
The  literature  about  Stirner  is  almost  exclusively  confined  to  a  few 
scattered  remarks  in  larger  works,  which  are  not  always  very  appro- 
priate. J.  H.  Mackay  is  said  to  be  working  at  a  biography  of  Stirner. 
The  monograph  by  Robert  Schellwien,  Max  Stirner  und  Friedrich 
Nietzsche  (Leipsic,  1892),  is  quite  worthless  for  our  purpose. 


Max  Stirner  105 

and  his  Property,  with  the  dedication  which,  under 
these  circumstances,  is  touching:  "  To  my  Darling, 
Marie  Dohnhardt."  The  book  appeared  like  a 
meteor;  it  caused  for  a  short  time  a  great  deal  of 
talk,  and  then  sank  into  oblivion  for  ten  years,  till 
the  growing  stream  of  Anarchist  thought  again 
came  back  to  it  in  more  recent  times.  A  History  of 
the  Reaction,  written  after  the  year  1848,  is  esteemed 
as  a  good  piece  of  historical  work ;  and,  besides  this, 
Caspar  Schmidt  also  produced  translations  of  Say, 
Adam  Smith,  and  other  English  economists.  On  the 
26th  of  June,  1856,  he  ended  his  life,  poor  in  external 
circumstances,  rich  in  want  and  bitterness.  That  is 
all  that  we  know  of  the  personality  of  the  man  who 
has  raised  the  idea  of  personality  to  a  Titanic 
growth  that  has  oppressed  the  world. 

Stirner  proceeds  from  the  fact,  the  validity  of 
which  we  have  placed  in  the  right  light  at  the  be- 
ginning of  this  book,  that  the  development  of  man- 
kind and  of  human  society  has  hitherto  proceeded 
in  a  decidedly  individualistic  direction,  and  has  con- 
sisted predominantly  in  the  gradual  emancipation  of 
the  individual  from  his  subjection  to  general  ideas 
and  their  corresponding  correlatives  in  actual  life,  in 
the  return  of  the  Ego  to  itself.  Starting  from  the 
school  of  Fichte  and  Hegel,  he  pursued  this  special 
individualistic  tendency  till  close  upon  the  limits  of 
caricature ;  he  formally  founded  a  cultus  of  the  Ego, 
all  the  while  being  anxious  that  it  should  not  return 
again  to  the  region  of  metaphysical  soap-bubbles, 
and  leave  its  psychological  and  practical  sphere. 
On  the  contrary,  Stirner  appears  to  be  rather  inclined 


io6  Anarchism 

to  Positivism,  and  to  consider  the  details  of  life  and 
of  perception  as  real,  and  as  the  only  ones  whose 
existence  is  justified.  All  that  is  comprehensible 
and  general  is  secondary,  a  product  of  the  individual, 
the  subject  turned  into  an  object,  a  creation  that 
is  looked  upon  and  honoured  by  the  creator  as  the 
only  actual  reality,  the  highest  end — indeed,  as 
something  sacred.  In  the  origin  of  this  generalisa- 
tion, as  well  as  in  emancipation  from  it,  Stirner 
perceives  the  course  of  progressive  culture. 

The  ancients  only  got  so  far  as  generalisations  of 
the  lower  order ;  they  lived  in  the  feeling  that  the 
world  and  worldly  relationships  (for  example,  the 
natural  bond  of  blood)  were  the  only  true  things 
before  which  their  powerless  self  must  bow  down. 
Man,  in  the  view  of  life  taken  by  the  ancient  world, 
lived  entirely  in  the  region  of  perception,  and  there- 
fore all  his  general  ideas,  even  the  highest  type  of 
them,  not  excluding  Plato's,  retained  a  strongly 
sensuous  character. 

Christianity  only  went  a  step  higher  with  its  gen- 
eralisations out  of  the  region  of  the  senses;  ideas 
became  more  spiritual  and  less  corporeal  in  propor- 
tion as  they  became  more  general.  Antiquity 
sought  the  true  pleasure  of  life,  enjoyment  of  life ; 
Christianity  sought  the  true  life;  antiquity  sought 
complete  sensuousness,  Christianity  complete  moral- 
ity and  spirituality ;  the  first  a  happy  life  here,  the 
latter  a  happy  life  hereafter;  antiquity  postulated  as 
the  highest  moral  basis,  the  State,  the  laws  of  the 
world  ;  Christianity  postulated  God,  imperishable, 
everlasting  Law,     The  ancient  world  did  not  get  be- 


Max  Stirner  107 

yond  the  rule  of  formal  reason,  the  Sophists ;  Christ- 
ianity put  the  heart  in  the  place  of  reason,  and 
cultivation  of  sentiment  in  that  of  one-sided  cultiva- 
tion of  the  intellect.  Nevertheless,  this  is,  accord- 
ing to  Stirner  (as  has  already  been  mentioned),  the 
same  process,  the  objectivisation  of  the  Self,  which 
comes  out  of  itself,  and  considers  itself  as  some 
foreign  body  striving  upwards — unconscious  self- 
deification. 

Even  in  the  Reformation  Stirner  recognises 
nothing  more  than  the  continuation  of  the  same 
process.  Up  to  the  time  of  the  period  preceding 
the  Reformation,  reason,  that  was  condemned  as 
heathenish,  lay  under  the  dominion  of  dogma; 
shortly  before  the  Reformation,  however,  it  was 
said,  "  If  only  the  heart  remains  Christianly  minded, 
reason  may  after  all  have  its  way. ' '  But  the  Re- 
formation at  last  places  the  heart  in  a  more  serious 
position,  and  since  then  hearts  have  become  visibly 
less  Christian.  When  men  began  with  Luther  "  to 
take  the  matter  to  heart,"  this  step  of  the  Reforma- 
tion led  to  the  heart  being  lightened  from  the  heavy 
burden  of  Christianity.  The  heart  becomes  from 
day  to  day  less  Christian ;  it  loses  the  contents  with 
which  it  occupies  itself,  until  at  last  nothing  remains 
to  it  but  empty  "  heartiness,"  general  love  of  man, 
the  love  of  humanity,  the  consciousness  of  freedom. 
It  need  hardly  be  mentioned  that  this  view  of 
history  is  quite  arbitrary  and  distorted.  Who  re- 
quires to  be  told  that  the  Reformation  was,  perhaps, 
the  greatest  historical  act  in  favour  of  the  individual, 
because  it  freed  him  from  the  most  powerful  of  all 


io8  Anarchism 

authorities,  from  the  omnipotence  of  the  Roman 
dogma  ?  With  the  Reformation  the  conscious 
movement  for  freedom  received  its  first  great  im- 
pulse. 

But  Stirner  places  the  reverence  of  the  ancients 
for  the  State,  the  reverence  of  the  Christian  for 
God,  and  of  modern  times  for  humanity  and  free- 
dom, all  upon  the  same  level, — they  all  seem  to  him 
ghosts,  spectres,  possession  by  spirits  and  hauntings, 
— and  he  seeks  to  establish  the  same  conclusion  as 
regards  the  ideas  of  truth,  right,  morality,  property, 
and  love, — the  so-called  sacred  foundations  of  human 
society.  They  are  all  ghost-imaginations  of  our 
own  mind,  creations  of  our  own  Ego,  before  which 
the  creator  of  them  bows  in  the  impotence  of 
ignorance,  considering  them  as  something  unalter- 
able, eternal,  and  sacred,  to  which  every  activity  of 
the  creative  idea  is  placed  in  contrast  as  Egoism. 

"  Men  have  got  something  into  their  heads  which 
they  think  ought  to  be  actualised.  They  have  ideas 
of  love,  goodness,  and  so  on,  which  they  would  like 
to  see  realised ;  and  therefore  they  wish  for  a  king- 
dom of  love  upon  earth  in  which  no  one  acts  out  of 
self-interest,  but  everyone  from  love.  Love  shall 
rule.  But  what  they  have  placed  in  their  heads, 
how  can  it  be  called  other  than  '  a  fixed  idea  '  {id^e 
fixe)  ?  Their  heads  are  haunted  by  spectres.  The 
most  persistently  haunting  spectre  is  Man  himself. 
Remember  the  proverb,  '  The  way  to  ruin  is  paved 
with  good  intentions.'  The  proposal  to  actualise 
humanity  in  itself,  to  become  wholly  human,  is  of 
just  the  same  disastrous  character,  and  to  it  belong 


Max  Stirner  109 

the  intentions  of  becoming  good,  noble,  loving,  and 
so  forth." 

The  dominion  of  the  idea,  whether  it  is  religious 
or  humanitarian  or  moral,  is  for  Stirner  mere  priest- 
craft ;  philanthropy  is  merely  a  heavenly,  spiritual, 
but  priest-imagined  love.  Man  must  be  restored, 
and  in  doing  so  we  poor  wretches  have  ruined  our- 
selves. It  is  the  same  ecclesiastic  principle  as  that 
celebrated  moito,  Fiat  Justitia,  pereat  mundus  ;  hu- 
manity and  justice  are  ideas  and  ghosts  to  which 
everything  is  sacrificed.  The  enthusiast  for  human- 
ity leaves  out  of  consideration  persons  as  far  as  his 
enthusiasm  extends,  and  walks  in  a  vague  ideal  of 
sacred  interest.  Humanity  is  not  a  person  but  an 
ideal — an  imagination. 

All  progress  of  public  opinion  or  emancipation  of 
the  human  mind,  as  hitherto  proceeding,  is  accord- 
ingly for  Stirner  worthless  labour,  a  mere  scene- 
shifting.  As  Christianity  not  only  did  not  free 
mankind  from  the  power  of  ancient  spectres,  but 
rather  strengthened  and  increased  them,  so  too  the 
Reformation  did  not  remove  the  chains  of  mankind 
a  hair's-breadth.  "  Because  Protestantism  broke 
down  the  medieval  hierarchy,  the  opinion  gained 
ground  that  hierarchy  in  general  had  been  broken 
down  by  it,  while  it  was  quite  overlooked  that  the 
Reformation  was  even  a  restoration  of  a  worn-out 
hierarchy.  The  hierarchy  of  the  middle  ages  had 
been  only  a  feeble  one,  since  it  had  to  allow  all 
possible  barbarity  to  persons  to  go  on  unchecked 
with  it,  and  the  Reformation  first  steeled  the  strength 
of   the  hierarchy.      When  Bruno  Bauer  said :  '  As 


no  Anarchism 

the  Reformation  was  principally  the  abstract  separa- 
tion of  the  religious  principle  from  art,  government, 
and  science,  and  thus  was  its  liberation  from  those 
powers  with  which  it  had  been  connected  in  the 
antiquity  of  the  Church  and  in  the  hierarchy  of  the 
middle  ages,  so  also  the  theological  and  ecclesiasti- 
cal movements  that  proceeded  from  the  Reformation 
were  only  the  logical  carrying  out  of  this  abstraction 
or  separation  of  the  religious  principle  from  other 
powers  of  humanity  ' ; — and  so  I  see  on  the  contrary 
that  which  is  right,  and  think  that  rule  of  the  mind 
or  mental  freedom  (which  comes  to  the  same  thing) 
has  never  been  before  so  comprehensive  and  power- 
ful as  at  the  present  time,  because  now,  instead  of 
separating  the  religious  principle  from  art,  govern- 
ment, and  science,  it  is  rather  raised  entirely  from 
the  kingdom  of  this  world  into  the  realm  of  the 
spirit  and  made  religious." 

From  the  same  point  of  view  he  considers  the 
whole  of  the  mental  attitude  introduced  by  the 
Reformation. 

"  How  can  one,"  he  says,  "  maintain  of  modern 
philosophy  and  of  the  modern  period  that  they  have 
accomplished  freedom  when  it  has  not  freed  us  from 
the  power  of  objectivity  ?  Or  am  I  free  from  des- 
pots when  I  no  longer  fear  a  personal  tyrant,  but 
am  afraid  of  every  outrage  upon  the  loyalty  which 
I  owe  to  him  ?  " 

This  is  just  the  case  in  the  modern  period.  It 
only  changes  existing  objects,  the  actual  ruler  and  so 
on,  to  an  imagined  one,  that  is,  into  ideas  for  which 
the  old  respect  not  only  has  not  been  lost  but  has 


Max  Stirner  in 

increased  in  intensity.  If  a  piece  was  taken  off  the 
idea  of  God  and  the  devil  in  their  former  gross  real- 
ism, nevertheless  only  so  much  the  more  attention 
has  been  devoted  to  our  conceptions  of  them. 
"  They  are  free  from  devils,  but  evil  has  remained." 
To  revolutionise  the  existing  State,  to  upset  the  ex- 
isting laws,  was  once  thought  little  of,  when  it  had 
once  been  determined  to  allow  oneself  to  be  no 
longer  imposed  upon  by  what  was  tangible  and 
existing;  but  to  sin  against  the  conception  of  the 
State  and  not  to  submit  to  the  conception  of  law — 
who  has  ventured  to  do  that  ?  So  men  remained 
"  citizens  "  and  "  law-abiding,  loyal  men  "  ;  indeed, 
men  thought  themselves  all  the  more  law-abiding  in 
proportion  as  they  more  rationalistically  did  away 
with  the  previous  faulty  law  in  order  to  do  homage 
to  the  spirit  of  law.  In  all  this  it  is  only  the 
objects  that  have  changed  but  which  have  remained 
in  their  supremacy  and  authority;  in  short,  men 
still  followed  obedience,  lived  in  reflection,  and  had 
an  object  upon  which  they  reflected,  which  they 
respected,  and  for  which  they  felt  awe  and  fear. 
Men  have  done  nothing  else  but  changed  things 
into  ideas  of  things,  into  thoughts  and  conceptions, 
and  thus  their  dependence  became  all  the  more  in- 
nate and  irrevocable.  It  is,  for  example,  not  difficult 
to  emancipate  oneself  from  the  commands  of  one's 
parents,  or  to  pay  no  heed  to  the  warnings  of  an 
uncle  or  an  aunt,  or  to  refuse  the  request  of  a 
brother  or  a  sister ;  but  the  obedience  thus  given  up 
lies  easily  upon  one's  conscience,  and  the  less  one 
gives  way   to   individual  sentiments,   because  one 


1 1 2  Anarchism 

recognises  them  from  a  rational  point  of  view,  and 
from  our  own  reason  to  be  unreasonable,  the  more 
firmly  does  one  cleave  conscientiously  to  piety  and 
family  love,  and  with  greater  difificulty  does  one 
forgive  an  offence  against  the  idea  which  one  has 
conceived  of  family  love  and  the  duty  of  piety.  Re- 
leased from  our  dependence  upon  the  existing  family 
life,  we  fall  into  the  more  binding  submission  to  the 
idea  of  the  family ;  we  are  governed  by  family  spirit. 
And  the  family,  thus  raised  up  to  an  idea  or  concep- 
tion, is  now  regarded  as  something"  sacred,"  and 
its  despotism  is  ten  times  worse,  because  its  power 
lies  in  my  conscience.  This  despotism  is  only 
broken  when  even  the  ideal  conception  of  the 
family  becomes  nothing  to  me.  And  as  it  is  with 
the  family,  so  it  is  with  morality.  Many  people 
free  themselves  from  customs,  but  with  difificulty 
do  they  get  free  from  the  idea  of  morality.  Moral- 
ity is  the  "  idea  "  of  custom,  its  spiritual  power,  its 
power  over  the  conscience ;  on  the  other  hand,  cus- 
tom is  something  too  material  to  have  power  over 
the  spirit,  and  does  not  fetter  a  man  who  is  inde- 
pendent, a  "  free  spirit." 

Humanity  strives  for  independence,  and  strives  to 
overcome  everything  which  is  not  a  self,  says  Stir- 
ner;  but  how  does  this  agree  with  the  above-men- 
tioned spread  of  the  power  of  the  mental  conception 
and  of  the  idea  ?  To-day  mankind  is  less  free  than 
before ;  so-called  Liberalism  only  brings  other  con- 
ceptions forward ;  that  is,  instead  of  the  divine,  the 
human ;  instead  of  ecclesiastical  ideas,  those  of  the 
State ;  instead  of  those  of  faith,  those  of  science ;  or 


Max  Stirner  113 

general  statements,  instead  of  the  rough  phrases  and 
dogmas,  actual  ideas  and  everlasting  laws. 

In  the  movement  for  emancipation  in  modern 
times  Stirner  distinguishes  three  different  varieties, 
the  political,  social,  and  humanitarian  Liberalism. 

Political  Liberalism,  according  to  Stirner,  culmin- 
ates in  the  thought  that  the  State  is  all  in  all,  and 
is  the  true  conception  of  humanity;  and  that  the 
rights  of  man  for  the  individual  consist  in  being  the 
citizen  of  the  State.  Political  Liberalism  did  away 
with  the  inequality  of  rights  of  feudal  times,  and 
broke  the  chains  of  servitude  which  at  that  period 
one  man  had  forced  upon  another,  the  privilege 
upon  him  who  was  less  privileged.  It  did  away 
with  all  special  interests  and  privileges,  but  it  by  no 
means  created  freedom ;  it  only  made  one  independ- 
ent of  the  other,  but  yet  made  all  the  most  absolute 
slaves  to  the  State.  It  gave  all  power  of  right  to 
the  State,  the  individual  only  becomes  something 
as  a  citizen,  and  only  has  those  rights  which  the 
State  gives  him.  Political  Liberalism,  says  Stirner, 
created  a  few  people,  but  not  one  free  individual. 
Absolute  monarchy  only  changed  its  name,  being 
known  formerly  as  "  king,"  now  as  "  people," 
"  State,"  or  "  nation." 

"  Political  freedom  says  that  the  polls,  the  State, 
is  free;  and  religious  freedom  says  that  religion  is 
free,  just  as  freedom  of  conscience  means  that  the 
conscience  is  free;  but  not  that  I  am  free  from  the 
State,  from  religion,  or  from  conscience.  It  does 
not  mean  my  freedom,  but  the  freedom  of  some 
power  which  governs  and  compels  me ;  it  means  that 

8 


114  Anarchism 

one  of  my  masters,  such  as  State,  religion,  or  con- 
science, is  free.  State,  religion,  and  conscience, 
these  despots  make  me  a  slave,  and  their  freedom 
is  my  slavery."  "  If  the  principle  is  that  only  facts 
shall  rule  mankind,  namely,  the  fact  of  morality  or 
of  legality,  and  so  on,  then  no  personal  limitations 
of  one  individual  by  the  other  can  be  authorised — 
that  is,  there  must  be  free  competition.  Only  by 
actual  fact  can  one  person  injure  another,  as  the  rich 
may  injure  the  poor  by  money — that  is,  by  a  fact, 
but  not  as  a  person.  There  is  henceforth  only  one 
authority,  the  authority  of  the  State ;  personally  no 
one  is  any  longer  lord  over  another.  But  to  the 
State,  all  its  children  stand  exactly  in  the  same 
position;  they  possess  '  civic  or  political  equality,' 
and  how  they  get  on  one  with  another  is  their  own 
affair;  they  must  compete.  Free  competition 
means  nothing  else  than  that  everyone  may  stand 
up  against  someone  else,  make  himself  felt,  and 
fight  against  him." 

At  this  point  (wherein  Stirner  by  no  means  recog- 
nises immediate  or  economic  individualism)  social 
Liberalism — that  which  we  to-day  call  social  De- 
mocracy or  communal  Socialism — separates  from 
the  political.  With  a  cleverness  which  we  cannot 
sufficiently  admire,  Stirner  proceeds  to  show  that 
these  directions  which  are  so  totally  opposed  are 
essentially  the  same,  and  regards  the  latter  merely 
as  the  logical  outcome  from  the  former. 

"  The  freedom  of  man  is,  in  political  Liberalism, 
the  freedom  from  persons,  from  personal  rule,  from 
masters;  security  of  any  individual  person,  as  re- 


Max  Stirner  115 

gards  other  persons,  is  personal  freedom.  No  one 
can  give  any  commands ;  the  law  alone  commands. 
But  if  persons  have  become  equal,  their  positions 
certainly  have  not.  And  yet  the  poor  man  needs 
the  rich,  and  the  rich  man  needs  the  poor;  the 
former  needs  the  money  of  the  rich,  the  latter  the 
work  of  the  poor.  Thus  no  one  needs  anyone  else 
as  a  person ;  but  he  needs  him  as  a  giver,  or  as  one 
who  has  something  to  give,  as  a  proprietor  or  posses- 
sor. Thus  what  he  has,  that  makes  a  man.  And  in 
having  or  in  possession  people  are  unequal.  Conse- 
quently, so  social  Liberalism  concludes,  no  one  must 
possess,  just  as,  according  to  political  Liberalism,  no 
one  must  command — that  is,  as  here  the  State 
alone  has  the  power  of  command,  so  now  society 
alone  has  the  power  of  possessing."  As  in  political 
Liberalism,  the  State  is  the  source  of  all  right ;  the 
individual  only  enjoys  so  much  of  it  as  the  State 
gives  him,  so  the  social  State,  now  called  society,  is 
also  the  only  master  of  all  possessions,  and  the  in- 
dividual must  only  have  so  much  as  society  lets  him 
share  in.  "  Before  the  highest  Ruler,"  says  Stirner 
in  his  rough  language,  "  before  the  only  Comman- 
der, we  all  become  equal — equal  persons,  that  is, 
nonentities.  Before  the  highest  owner  of  property 
we  all  become  vagabonds  alike.  And  now  one 
person  is,  in  the  estimation  of  another,  a  vagabond, 
a  '  havenought,'  but  then  this  estimate  of  each 
other  stops,  we  are  all  at  once  vagabonds,  and  we 
can  only  call  the  totality  of  communist  society  *  a 
conglomeration  of  vagabonds. '  ' ' 

That  which  Stirner,  finally,  under  the  name  of 


ii6  Anarchism 

humanitarian  Liberalism,  places  side  by  side  with 
the  two  tendencies  just  mentioned  has  nothing  to 
do,  generally  speaking,  with  the  political  and  ma- 
terial relations  of  mankind,  and  is  the  philosophical 
Liberalism  of  Feuerbach,  who  places  freedom  of 
thought  in  the  same  position  as  his  predecessors  put 
freedom  of  the  person.  "  In  the  human  society 
which  humanitarianism  promises,"  says  Stirner, 
nothing  can  be  recognised  which  any  person  has 
as  something  '  special,'  nothing  shall  have  any  value 
which  bears  the  mark  of  a  *  private  '  individual.  In 
this  way  the  circle  of  Liberalism  completes  itself, 
having  in  humanity  its  good  principle,  in  the  egotist 
and  every  '  private  '  person  its  evil  one  ;  in  the 
former  its  God,  in  the  latter  its  devil.  If  the 
special  or  private  person  lost  his  value  in  the  State, 
and  if  special  or  private  property  ceased  to  be  recog- 
nised in  the  community  of  workers  or  vagabonds, 
then  in  human  society  everything  special  or  private 
is  left  out  of  consideration,  and  when  pure  criticism 
shall  have  performed  its  difficult  work,  then  we 
shall  know  what  is  private,  and  what  one  must 
leave  alone  in  seines  Nichts  durchbohrendem  Gefuhle.'* 
Political  Liberalism  regulated  the  relations  of  might 
and  right,  social  Liberalism  wishes  to  regulate  those 
of  property  and  labour,  humanitarian  Liberalism 
lays  down  the  ethical  principles  of  modern  society. 


As  may  be  seen,  Stirner  does  not  recognise  the 
efforts  and  endeavours  of  all  these  tendencies  to 
which  we  ascribe  the  complete  transformation  of 


Max  Stirner  117 

Europe  in  the  last  century,  but,  on  the  contrary,  is 
prepared  to  perceive  in  them  rather  an  intensification 
of  the  servitude  in  which  the  free  Ego  is  held.  The 
more  spiritual,  the  more  interesting,  the  more  sub- 
lime and  the  more  sacred  ideas  become  for  men,  the 
greater  becomes  their  respect  for  them,  and  the  less 
becomes  the  freedom  of  the  Ego  as  regards  them. 
But  as  these  ideas  are  merely  creations  of  man's  own 
spirit, — fiction  and  unreal  forms, — all  the  so-called 
progress  made  by  Liberalism  is  regarded  by  Stirner 
as  nothing  else  than  increasing  self-delusion  and  con- 
stant retrogression.  True  progress  evidently  lies  for 
him  only  in  the  complete  emancipation  of  the  Ego 
from  this  dominion  of  ideas  that  is  in  the  triumph 
of  egotism.  "  For  Individualism  (egotism)  is  the 
creator  of  everything,  just  as  already  genius  [a  defin- 
ite egotism]  which  is  always  originality,  is  regarded 
as  the  creator  of  new  historical  productions.  Free- 
dom teaches  us  :  set  yourselves  free,  get  rid  of 
everything  burdensome ;  but  it  does  not  teach  you 
who  you  yourselves  are.  Free !  free !  so  sounds  its 
cry,  and  you  eagerly  follow  it;  become  free  from 
yourselves,  and  renounce  yourselves.  But  Individ- 
ualism calls  you  back  to  yourselves,  and  says: 
'  Come  to  yourself!  '  Under  the  aegis  of  freedom 
you  become  free  from  many  things,  but  become 
subject  again  to  some  new  thing;  you  are  free  from 
the  Evil  One,  but  abstract  evil  still  remains.  As 
individuals  you  are  really  free  from  everything,  and 
what  clings  to  you  you  have  accepted.  That  is  your 
choice  .and  your  wish.  The  individual  is  the  one 
who  is  born  free,  the  man  who  is  free  by  birth.     The 


ii8  Anarchism 

'  free  man,'  on  the  other  hand,  is  he  who  only  looks 
for  freedom,  the  dreamer,  the  enthusiast."  Free- 
dom is  only  possible  together  with  the  power  to  ac- 
quire it  and  to  maintain  it;  but  this  power  only 
resides  in  the  individual.  "  My  power  is  my  prop- 
erty ;  my  power  gives  me  property ;  I  am  myself  my 
own  power,  and  am  thereby  my  own  property." 
This  is,  in  a  nutshell,  Stirner's  positive  doctrine. 

Right  is  power  or  might.  "  What  you  have  the 
power  to  be,  that  you  have  the  right  to  be.  I  de- 
rive all  right  and  justification  from  myself  alone ;  for 
I  am  entitled  to  everything  which  I  have  power  to 
take  or  to  do.  I  am  entitled  to  overthrow  Zeus, 
Jehovah  or  God,  if  I  can ;  if  I  can  not,  these  gods 
will  always  retain  their  rights  and  power  over  me ; 
but  I  shall  stand  in  awe  of  their  rights  and  their 
power  in  impotent  reverence,  and  shall  keep  their 
commands  and  believe  I  am  doing  right  in  every- 
thing that  I  do,  according  to  their  ideas  of  right, 
just  as  a  Russian  frontier  sentry  considers  himself 
justified  in  shooting  dead  a  suspicious  person  who 
runs  away,  because  he  relies  upon  a  *  higher  author- 
ity,' in  other  words,  commits  murder  legally.  But 
I  am  justified  in  committing  a  murder  by  myself,  if 
I  do  not  forbid  it  to  myself,  if  I  am  not  afraid  of 
murder  in  the  abstract  as  of  '  something  wrong. '  I 
am  only  not  justified  in  what  I  do  not  do  of  my  own 
free  will,  that  is,  that  which  I  do  not  give  myself 
the  right  to  do.  I  decide  whether  the  right  resides 
in  me;  for  there  is  some  right  external  to  myself. 
If  it  is  right  to  me,  then  it  is  right.  It  is  possible 
that  others  may  not  regard  it  as  right,  but  that  is 


Max  Stirner  119 

their  affair,  not  mine,  and  they  must  take  their  own 
measures  against  it.  And  if  something  was  in  the 
eyes  of  the  whole  world  not  right,  and  yet  seemed 
right  to  me,  that  is,  if  I  wished  it,  even  then  I  should 
ask  nothing  from  the  world :  thus  does  everyone 
who  knows  how  to  value  himself,  and  each  does  it 
to  the  extent  that  he  is  an  egotist,  for  might  goes 
before  right,  and  quite  rightly  too." 

All  existing  right  is  external  to  the  Ego ;  no  one 
can  give  me  my  right,  neither  God,  nor  reason,  nor 
Nature,  nor  the  State;  as  to  whether  I  am  right  or 
not  there  is  only  one  judge  and  that  is  myself; 
others  at  most  can  pass  a  judgment  and  decide 
whether  they  support  my  right  and  whether  it  also 
exists  as  a  right  for  them.  Law  is  the  will  of  the 
dominating  power  in  a  community.  Every  State  is 
a  despotism,  whether  the  dominant  power  belongs 
to  one,  to  many,  or  to  all.  A  despotism  would  re- 
main then,  if,  for  example,  in  the  national  assembly 
the  national  will,  that  is  to  say,  the  individual  wills 
of  each  person,  really  had  overwhelmingly  expressed 
itself,  including  also  my  own  will ;  if  then  this  wish 
becomes  law  I  am  bound  to-morrow  by  what  I  wished 
yesterday,  and  then  I  thus  become  a  servant,  even 
though  it  be  only  the  servant  of  myself.  How  can 
this  be  changed  ?  "  Only  by  my  recognising  no 
duty,  neither  letting  myself  bind  nor  be  bound.  If 
I  have  no  duty  then  I  also  know  no  law."  Wrong 
goes  side  by  side  with  right,  crime  with  legality. 
The  unfettered  Ego  of  Stirner  is  the  never-ceasing 
criminal  in  the  State ;  for  only  he  who  denies  his 
"  self,"  and  who  practises  self-denial  is  acceptable 


? 


1 20  Anarchism 

to  the  State.  And  thus  with  the  disappearance  of 
right  comes  also  the  disappearance  of  crime. 

"  The  dispute  about  the  right  of  property  is  vio- 
lently waged.  The  Communists  maintain  that  the 
earth  belongs  properly  to  him  who  cultivates  it ;  and 
the  products  of  the  same  to  those  who  produce  them. 
I  maintain  it  belongs  to  him  who  knows  how  to 
take  it,  or  who  does  not  let  it  be  taken  from  him  or 
let  himself  be  deprived  of  it ;  if  he  appropriates  it, 
not  merely  the  earth  but  also  the  right  to  it  belongs 
to  him.  This  is  the  egotistical  right,  that  is,  it  is 
right  for  me,  and  therefore  it  is  right."  How  far 
Stirner  is  separated  from  Proudhon  is  shown  most 
clearly  in  the  question  of  property.  Proudhon  de- 
nied property  because  it  was  incompatible  with 
justice.  Stirner  denies  justice,  and  maintains  prop- 
erty upon  the  grounds  of  the  right  of  occupation. 
Proudhon  declared  that  property  was  theft,  but 
Stirner  entirely  reverses  the  phrase,  and  answers  to 
the  question.  What  is  my  property  ? — "  Nothing  but 
what  is  in  my  power."  To  what  property  am  I  en- 
titled ?— "  To  that  which  I  entitle  myself."  "  I 
give  myself  the  right  to  property  by  taking  property 
or  by  giving  myself  the  power  of  the  proprietor,  a 
full  power  or  title." 

The  theory  of  occupation  or  seizure  here  appears 
to  us  in  all  its  brutality.  Nevertheless,  even  here 
Stirner  is  not  frightened  at  the  most  extreme  con- 
sequences of  this  theory,  nor  at  the  thought  that  one 
would  have  to  defend  one's  property  daily  and  hourly 
with  a  weapon  in  one's  hand;  and  he  is  therefore 
inclined   to  rnake  some  concession  to  a  voluntary 


Max  Stirner  121 

form  of  organisation.  "  If  men  reach  the  point  of 
losing  respect  for  property,  each  will  have  property ; 
just  as  all  slaves  become  freemen  as  soon  as  they  re- 
gard their  master  no  longer  as  master.  Union  will 
then  multiply  the  means  of  the  individual,  and  se- 
cure for  him  the  property  he  has  acquired  by  fight- 
ing. In  the  opinion  of  the  Communists  the 
community  should  be  the  only  proprietor.  The 
converse  of  this  is,  I  am  the  proprietor,  and  merely 
come  to  some  agreement  with  others  about  my 
property.  If  the  community  does  not  do  right  by 
me,  I  revolt  against  it,  and  defend  my  property.  I 
am  an  owner  of  property,  but  property  is  not  sacred. ' ' 
The  regulation  of  society  by  itself  is  accepted  by 
Stirner  just  as  little  as  in  the  question  of  property, 
when  it  comes  to  the  question  of  obtaining  for  the 
labourers  a  full  reward  of  their  labour.  "  They  must 
rely  upon  themselves  and  ask  nothing  from  the 
State,"  he  answers.  Only  to  a  third  very  difficult 
question  does  this  thoroughgoing  theorist  fail  in  an 
answer.  He  declares  pauperism  to  be  "  lack  of 
value  of  myself,  when  I  cannot  make  my  value  felt ; 
and,  therefore,  I  can  only  get  free  from  pauperism 
if  I  make  my  value  felt  as  an  individual,  if  I  give 
myself  value,  and  put  my  own  price  upon  myself. 
All  attempts  at  making  the  masses  happy,  and  phil- 
anthropic associations  arising  from  the  principle  of 
love,  must  come  to  grief,  for  help  can  only  come  to 
the  masses  through  egotism,  and  this  help  they 
must  and  will  procure  for  themselves.  ^  The  ques- 
tion of  property  cannot  be  solved  in  such  a  legal 
way  as  the  Socialists,   and  even  the  Communists, 


122  Anarchism 

imagine.  It  can  only  be  solved  by  the  war  of  all 
against  all.  The  poor  will  only  become  free  and 
be  owners  of  property  by  revolting,  rising,  and  rais- 
ing themselves.  However  much  is  given  them,  they 
will  always  wish  to  have  more ;  for  they  wish  nothing 
less  than  that,  at  last,  there  shall  remain  nothing 
more  to  give.  It  will  be  asked  :  But  what  will  hap- 
pen then,  when  those  who  have  nothing  take  courage 
and  rise  ?  What  kind  of  equalisation  will  be  made  ? 
One  might  just  as  well  ask  me  to  determine  a  child's 
nativity ;  what  a  slave  will  do  when  he  has  broken 
his  chains  one  can  only  wait  and  see." 

Step  by  step  Stirner  departs  from  Proudhon ;  the 
latter  demands,  in  order  to  create  his  paradise,  a 
balance,  the  former  lays  down  the  principle  of 
natural  selection  as  the  highest  and  only  law  in 
social  matters.  The  fight,  the  struggle  for  exist- 
ence, which  Proudhon  strove  to  recognise  in  eco- 
nomic life,  here  enters  upon  its  rights  in  all  its 
brutality.  The  realisation  of  the  self  is,  for  Stirner, 
the  key  to  the  solution  of  the  problems  of  work, 
property,  and  pauperism.  He  will  have  no  division 
of  goods,  no  organisation  of  labour.  For  Proudhon 
every  piece  of  work  is  the  result  of  a  collective 
force,  for  Stirner  the  most  valuable  works  are  those 
of  "individual"  artists,  savants,  and  so  on,  and 
their  value  is  always  to  be  determined  only  from  the 
egoist  standpoint. 

To  the  question  whether  money  should  be  main- 
tained or  done  away  with  among  egoists,  he  an- 
swers :  "  If  you  know  a  better  medium  of  exchange, 
all  right;  but  it  will  always  be  '  money.'     It  is  not 


Max  Stirner  123 

money  that  does  you  harm,  but  your  lack  of  power 
to  take  it.  Let  your  power  be  felt,  nerve  your- 
selves, and  you  will  not  lack  money — your  money, 
the  money  of  your  own  coining.  But  working  I  do 
not  call  letting  your  power  be  felt.  Those  who  only 
'  seek  for  work,  and  are  willing  to  work  hard,'  pre- 
pare for  themselves  inextinguishable  lack  of  work." 
What  we  now-a-days  call  free  competition,  Stirner 
refuses  to  regard  as  free,  since  everyone  has  not  the 
means  for  competing.  "  To  abolish  competition 
only  means  to  favour  members  of  some  craft.  The 
distinction  is  this:  in  a  craft,  such  as  baking,  baking 
is  the  business  of  the  members  of  the  craft ;  under 
a  system  of  competition  it  is  the  business  of  any- 
one who  likes  to  compete ;  but  in  societies  it  is  the 
business  of  those  who  use  what  is  baked ;  thus,  my 
or  your  business,  not  the  business  of  the  members 
of  the  craft,  nor  of  the  baker  who  has  a  concession 
given  him,  but  of  those  in  the  union  or  society." 
Here  for  the  second  time  we  meet  with  the  idea  of 
a  union,  without  Stirner  expressing  himself  exactly 
about  its  character.  Only  in  one  other  place  does 
he  happen  to  speak  about  the  ideas  of  this  union. 
He  says  the  end  of  society  is  agreement  or  union. 
A  society  also  certainly  arises  through  union,  but 
only  in  the  same  way  as  a  fixed  idea  arises  from  a 
thought,  namely,  by  the  fact  that  the  energy  of  the 
thought,  thinking  itself  the  restless  absorption  of 
all  rising  thoughts,  disappears  from  thought.  When 
a  union  has  crystallised  itself  into  a  society,  it  has 
ceased  to  be  an  active  union ;  for  the  act  of  union 
is  a  ceaseless  uniting  of  individuals,  it  has  become 


124  Anarchism 

a  united  existence,  has  come  to  a  standstill,  has 
degenerated  into  a  fixity ;  it  is  dead  as  a  union ;  it 
is  the  corpse  of  union,  and  of  the  act  of  union ;  that 
is,  it  is  a  society  or  community.  What  is  known  as 
"  party  "  is  a  striking  example  of  this. 

Stirner  admits  that  union  cannot  exist  without 
freedom,  being  limited  in  all  manner  of  ways.  But 
absolute  freedom  is  merely  an  ideal,  a  spectre,  and 
the  object  of  the  union  is  not  freedom,  which  it,  on 
the  contrary,  sacrifices  to  individualism,  but  its 
object  is  only  individualism.  "  Union  is  my  crea- 
tion, my  implement,  sacred  to  me,  but  has  no 
spiritual  power  over  my  mind,  and  does  not  make 
me  bow  down  to  it ;  but  I  make  it  bow  down  to  me, 
and  use  it  for  my  own  purposes.  As  I  may  not  be 
a  slave  of  my  maxims,  but  without  any  guarantee 
expose  them  to  my  own  continual  criticism,  and 
give  no  guarantee  of  their  continuance,  so,  still  less, 
do  I  pledge  myself  to  the  union  for  my  future,  or 
bind  my  soul  to  it ;  but  I  am  and  remain  to  myself 
more  than  State  or  Church,  and  consequently  in- 
finitely more  than  the  union." 

Just  as  we  again  recognise  in  this  loose  and  always 
breakable  union  (although  Stirner  does  not  say  so) 
that  union  whose  mission  he  had  declared  it  to  be 
"  to  render  secure  property  gained  by  force,  "  to 
arrange  the  relations  of  production  and  consumption, 
and  at  the  same  time  to  create  a  certain  unity  of  the 
means  of  payment;  so,  too,  we  have  in  this  "  union 
of  egoists,"  as  its  author  called  it,  all  the  construct- 
ive thought  that  Stirner's  book  either  can  or  does 
contain.     For  a  man  who  only  acknowledges  one 


Max  Stirner  125 

dimension,  and  only  operates  with  one,  considering 
everything  not  contained  therein  as  non-existing, 
cannot  form  any  of  the  combinations  of  which  life 
consists,  without  coming  into  hopeless  conflict  with 
his  principles.  This  Stirner  has  done,  in  spite  of 
the  vague  and  imaginary  nature  of  his  "  union  of 
egoists." 

As  Stirner  had  to  acknowledge  that  this  union  or 
society  cannot  exist  without  freedom  being  limited 
in  every  way,  he  declared — since  after  all  he  requires 
union  for  some  things — "  absolute  freedom  "  a  crea- 
ture of  the  imagination,  as  the  opposite  to  "  individ- 
uality," which  is  the  main  thing.  But  can  it  be 
believed  that  Stirner  has  set  up  an  "  absolute  free- 
dom "  all  of  his  own  making,  to  place  it  in  contrast 
with  individuality.  In  other  words,  freedom  is 
merely  the  possibility  of  living  one's  individuality, 
of  being  an  "  individual  "  in  Stirner's  sense.  Free- 
dom is  the  absence  of  every  outside  influence;  it 
may  be  understood  in  an  exoteric  or  esoteric  sense ; 
and  throughout  his  whole  book  Stirner  has  done 
nothing  but  strip  the  "  Ego  "  from  every  sign  of  out- 
side compulsion ;  he  has  made  it  the  "  only  one  "  by 
freeing  it  with  relentless  logic  from  everything  ex- 
ternal. He  has  depicted  this  act  of  liberation  as 
the  goal  of  all  culture;  and  it  finally  emerges  that 
all  this  story  of  the  "  only  Ego  "  is  a  delusion,  for 
"  union  "  excludes  "  absolute  individuality  "  as  well 
as  "  absolute  freedom  " — because  the  two  are  iden- 
tical. 

Stirner,  indeed,  only  spoke  of  an  "  absolute  free- 
dom "  to  represent  it  as  a  fiction  of  the  imagination. 


1 26  Anarchism 

and  on  the  other  hand  only  of  an  individuality. 
Now  his  union  does  not  exclude  individuality  and 
freedom,  but  only  absolute  individuality.  But  this 
last  Stifner  cannot  admit,  because  it  also  he  regards 
merely  as  a  "  spectre,"  an  "  obsession,"  a  "  fixed 
idea."  But  whether  he  admits  it  or  not,  what  is 
Stirner's  "  individual "  but  an  idea,  something  ab- 
solute ?  Stirner  had  begun  with  the  intention  of 
slaying  Feuerbach's  idea  of  "  man  "  as  a  retrograde 
idealist  fallacy,  and  of  creating,  like  Prometheus,  a 
new  man,  the  Unmensch,  in  the  Ego  completed  into 
a  microcosm,  and,  as  such,  complete  in  itself,  sepa- 
rate and  independent.  But  that  is,  as  a  matter  of 
fact,  not  the  "no -man"  but  the  superhuman 
Prometheus  himself,  the  idea  of  Man  which  he  at- 
tacked in  Feuerbach.  "  Might,"  he  says  in  one 
part  of  his  book,  "  goes  before  right,  and  rightly 
too."  This  is  exactly  the  logical  scheme  of  the 
whole  book.  Away  with  everything  absolute !  In- 
dividuality goes  before  every  idea,  just  because  it  is 
itself  the  absolute  idea  of  the  much-despised  Hegel. 
But  suppose  we  do  not  take  into  consideration  this 
fundamental  contradiction.  Let  us  suppose  there 
is  none,  and  that  all  Stirner's  other  assumptions  are 
indisputable,  that  God,  Humanity,  Society,  Right, 
the  State,  the  Family  are  all  classed  in  one  category, 
as  were  abstractions  and  creations  of  my  own  ' '  Ego, ' ' 
what  follows  ?  That  these  ideas,  now  that  they  have 
lost  their  absolute  character,  are  no  longer  to  be 
reckoned  as  factors  in  the  organisation  of  life  ?  It 
is  so,  if  one  regards  only  that  which  is  absolute  as 
entitled  to  exist ;  but  Stirner  would  drive  everything 


Max  Stirner  127 

absolute  from  its  very  last  positions.  And  does  it 
follow  further  from  the  circumstance  that  one  of 
these  factors  has  lost  its  controlling  influence  over 
mankind  that  all  the  others,  because  they  too  are 
not  absolute,  should  be  denied  all  practical  signific- 
ance ?  Put  in  concrete  form,  the  question  stands 
thus  :  (i)  Has  the  idea  of  Deity  lost  its  practical 
significance,  because  it  has  been  divested  of  its  ab- 
solute character,  and  its  purely  empiric  origin  has 
been  recognised  ?  and  (2)  If  the  idea  of  Right  is  no 
more  an  absolute  one  than  the  idea  of  Deity,  does 
it  follow  that  the  influence  of  Right  must  be  placed 
upon  the  same  plane  as  the  influence  of  conscience  ? 

As  to  the  first  point,  I  am  relieved  from  any  an- 
swer in  view  of  the  thorough  treatment  of  these 
questions  by  the  light  of  modern  investigation. 
The  second  question  I  prefer  to  leave  to  some  pro- 
fessional jurist,  who  knows  the  nature  of  law,  and 
at  the  same  time  has  every  intention  of  doing  just- 
ice to  Stirner. 

Dr.  Rudolf  Stammler  says,'  after  showing  that 
the  necessity  of  the  influence  of  Law  for  human 
society  cannot  be  proved  a  priori :  "  It  is  the  theory 
of  Anarchism  which  must  lead  us  with  special  force 
to  a  train  of  thought  that  has  never  yet  appeared  in 
the  literature  of  legal  philosophy,  although  it  makes 
clear,  in  a  manner  universally  valid,  the  necessity  of 
legal  compulsion  in  itself  and  justifies  legal  organis- 
ation. For  the  antithesis  of  our  present  mode  of 
social  life,  based  on  law  and  right,  is,  as  conceived 
by  Anarchism  as  its  ideal  and  goal,  the  union  and 

'  Stammler,  Die  Theorie  des  Anarchismus,  Berlin,  1894,  p.  42. 


12$  Anarchism 

ordering  of  men  in  freely  formed  communities,  and 
entirely  under  rules  framed  by  convention.  Though 
the  individual  Anarchist  may  regard  a  union  of 
egoists  as  a  postulate,  or  may  desire  fraternal  Com- 
munism, yet  each  must  determine  for  himself  his 
connection  with  such  a  community.  Let  him  enter 
freely  into  the  supposed  agreement  and  break  it 
again  as  seems  good  to  him,  it  is  still  the  stipulations 
of  the  agreement  that  bind  him  as  long  as  the  agree- 
ment exists;  an  agreement  which  he  must  first  enter 
into  and  can  at  any  time  break  regardless  of  con- 
ditions by  a  new  expression  of  his  will.  From  this 
it  is  that  this  kind  of  organisation,  which  forms  the 
core  of  the  theory  of  Anarchism,  is  only  possible  for 
such  of  mankind  as  are  actually  qualified  and  capa- 
ble of  uniting  with  others  in  some  form  of  agree- 
ment. Those  who  are  not  capable  of  acting  for 
themselves,  as  we  jurists  say,  such  as  the  little  child, 
those  who  are  of  unsound  mind,  incapacitated  by 
illness  and  old  age,  all  these  would  be  entirely  ex- 
cluded from  such  an  organisation  and  from  all  social 
life.  For  as  soon  as,  for  example,  an  infant  has 
been  taken  into  this  society  and  subjected  to  its 
rules,  the  compulsion  of  law  would  have  been  again 
introduced,  and  authority  would  have  been  exercised 
over  a  human  being  without  the  proper  rules  for  his 
assent  being  observed.  The  Anarchist  organisation 
of  man's  social  life  therefore  fails,  inasmuch  as  it  is 
possible  only  for  certain  special  persons,  qualified 
empirically,  and  excludes  others  who  lack  these 
qualifications.  I  therefore  conclude  the  necessity 
of  legal  compulsion,  not  from  the  fact  that  without 


Max  Stirner  i^O 

it  the  small  and  weak  would  fare  but  badly ;  for  I 
cannot  know  this  for  certain  beforehand  and  as  a 
general  rule.  Nor  do  I  deduce  the  recognised  and 
justified  existence  of  legal  arrangements  from  the 
fact  that  only  by  these  can  the  *  true  '  freedom  of 
each  individual  be  attained  without  the  interference 
of  any  third  person ;  for  that  would  not  be  justified 
by  the  facts  of  history,  and  would  certainly  not  fol- 
low from  formal  legal  compulsion  in  itself.  Rather, 
I  base  the  lawfulness  of  law  and  the  rightness  of 
right,  in  its  formal  state,  upon  the  consideration 
that  a  legal  organisation  is  the  only  one  open  to  all 
human  beings  without  distinction  of  special  fortuit- 
ous qualifications.  To  organise  means  to  unite 
under  rules.  Such  a  regulation  of  human  relation- 
ships is  a  means  to  an  end,  an  instrument  serving 
the  pursuit  of  the  final  end  of  the  highest  possible 
perfection  of  man.  Hence  only  that  regulation  of 
human  society  can  be  universally  justified  which  can 
embrace  universally  all  human  beings  without  refer- 
ence to  their  subjective  or  different  peculiarities.  Law 
alone  can  do  this.  So  even  under  a  bad  law  legal 
compulsion  in  itself  retains  its  sound  foundation. 
Its  existence  does  not  cease  to  be  justified,  nor  is  it 
even  touched,  by  any  chance  worthlessness  of  the 
concrete  law  in  question :  it  is  firmly  founded,  be- 
cause it  alone  offers  the  possibility  of  a  universally 
valid,  because  universally  human,  organisation. 
Therefore  social  progress  can  only  be  made  by  per- 
fecting law  as  handed  down  by  history,  according  to 
its  content,  and  not  by  abolishing  legal  compulsion 
as  such." 

9 


130  Anarchism 

These  conclusions  block  the  way  for  the  mischiev- 
ous misapplications  of  distorted  expressions  of  an 
exact  thinker  such  as  Ihering.  Ihering  certainly 
took  away  ruthlessly  the  ideological  basis  of  law, 
but  he  never  denied  or  attacked  necessity  of  legal 
compulsion  as  Stirner  did.  We  might  just  as  well 
ascribe  to  Darwin  the  intention  of  disowning  man 
because  he  set  forth  man's  natural  descent. 

It  is  of  just  as  little  use  to  claim  that  past  master 
of  sociology,  Herbert  Spencer,  in  support  of  Stir- 
ner's  views,  because  Spencer  too  recognises  the 
purely  egoistical  origin  of  law  and  of  social  organi- 
sation. Egoism  and  Anarchism  are  not  so  mutually 
interchangeable  as  Stirner  thinks.  The  question 
is,  first  of  all,  whether  egoism  after  all  really  finds 
its  account  in  the  "  union  of  egoists."  It  has  been 
already  more  than  once  remarked  that  here  too,  as 
in  the  case  of  Proudhon,  we  only  have  to  do,  at 
bottom,  with  the  logical  extension  of  the  present 
order  of  society  that  rests  on  free  competition. 
"  Make  your  value  felt  "  is  still  to-day  the  highest 
economic  principle;  and  he  whose  value,  whose  in- 
dividuality consists  in  knowledge  alone  without  an 
adequate  admixture  of  worldly  wisdom,  would  prob- 
ably fare  no  better  in  the  more  perfect  Anarchist 
world  than  the  poor  schoolmaster  Caspar  Schmidt 
in  our  bourgeois  society,  who  suffered  all  the  pangs 
of  hunger  and  greeted  Death  as  his  redeemer. 


Stirner  did  not  form  any  school  of  followers  in 
Germany  in  his  own  time,  but  Julius  Faucher  (1820- 


Max  Stirner  131 

78)  who  was  known  as  a  publicist  and  a  rabid  Free- 
trader, represented  his  ideas  in  his  newspaper  Die 
Abendpost  {The  Evening  Post),  published  in  Berlin 
in  1850.  This  paper  was,  of  course,  soon  sup- 
pressed, and  the  only  apostle  of  Stirner's  gospel 
thereupon  left  the  Continent  and  went  to  England, 
to  turn  to  something  more  practical  that  Anarchism, 
or  (to  use  Stirner's  own  jargon)  to  realise  his  "  Ego  " 
more  advantageously.  How  strange  and  anomalous 
Stirner's  individualism  appeared  even  to  the  most  ad- 
vanced Radicals  of  Germany  in  that  period  appears 
very  clearly  from  a  conversation  recorded  by  Max 
Wirth,'  which  Faucher  had  with  the  stalwart  Re- 
publican Schloffel,  in  an  inn  frequented  by  the  Left 
party  in  the  Parliament  of  Frankfort.  "  Schloffel 
loved  to  boast  of  his  Radical  opinions,  just  as  at  that 
time  many  men  took  a  pride  in  being  as  extreme  as 
possible  among  the  members  of  the  Left.  He  ex- 
pressed his  astonishment  that  Faucher  held  aloof 
from  the  current  of  politics.  '  It  is  because  you 
are  too  near  the  Right  party  for  me,'  answered 
Faucher,  who  delighted  in  astonishing  people  with 
paradoxes.  Schloffel  stroked  his  long  beard  proudly, 
and  replied,  *  Do  you  say  that  to  mef  'Yes,' 
continued  Faucher,  '  for  you  are  a  Republican  in- 
carnate; you  still  want  a  State.  Now  /  do  not 
want  a  State  at  all,  and,  consequently,  I  am  a  more 
extreme  member  of  the  Left  than  you. '  It  was  the 
first  time  Schloffel  had  heard  these  paradoxes,  and 
he  replied:    *  Nonsense;    who   can   emancipate   us 

'  "  Zur  Geschicte  des  Anarchismus,"  Neue  Freie  Press,  26th  July 
1894  (No.  10,748). 


132  Anarchism 

from  the  State  ?'  '  Crime,'  was  Faucher's  reply, 
uttered  with  an  expression  of  pathos.  Schloffel 
turned  away,  and  left  the  drinking  party  without 
saying  a  word  more.  The  others  broke  out  laugh- 
ing at  the  proud  demagogue  being  thus  outdone: 
but  no  one  seems  to  have  suspected  in  the  words  of 
Faucher  more  than  a  joke  in  dialectics."  This  an- 
ecdote is  a  good  example  of  the  way  in  which 
Stirner's  ideas  were  understood,  and  shows  that 
Faucher  was  the  only  individual  "  individual " 
among  the  most  Radical  politicians  of  that  time.' 
On  the  other  hand,  Proudhon's  doctrines,  which  in 
their  native  France  could  not  find  acceptance, 
gained  a  few  proselytes  among  the  Radical  Demo- 
crats, and  especially  among  the  Communists  of 
Switzerland  and  the  Rhine. 

Moses  Hess  was,  among  Germans,  the  first  to 
seize  hold  upon  the  word  "  Anarchy  "  fearlessly 
and  spread  it  abroad.  This  was  in  1843,  thus 
shortly  after  the  appearance  of  Proudhon's  sensa- 
tional book  on  property,  where  the  word  was  first 
definitely  adopted  as  the  badge  of  a  party.  Hess 
was  born  at  Bonn  in  181 2,  and  was  meant  for  a 
merchant's  life,  but  turned  his  attention  to  studies 
picked  up  later,  more  especially  to  Hegelian  philo- 
sophy, and  entered  upon  the  career  of  literature. 
In  the  beginning  of  the  forties  he  propounded  in 
his  works  on  The  Philosophy  of  Action  and  Social- 

'  It  is  characteristic  that  even  the  German  followers  of  Proudhon, 
as,  e.  g.,  Marr,  Griin,  and  others,  had  a  very  poor  opinion  of  Stirner, 
and  never  dreamed  of  any  connection  between  his  views  and  those  of 
Proudhon. 


Max  Stirner  133 

ism  a  confused  programme,  in  which  the  Communism 
of  Weitling  was  curiously  intermingled  with  the 
views  of  Proudhon.  In  1845  he  expressed  his  views 
in  a  paper  called  The  Mirror  of  Society  {Gesell- 
schaftspiegel),  that  appeared  later  in  1846,  under  the 
title  of  The  Social  Conditions  of  the  Civilised  World, 
and  represented  the  extreme  views  of  Rhenish 
Socialism.     Moses  Hess  died  in  obscurity  in  1872. 

Hess  went  farther  than  Proudhon,  in  that  he 
differed  from  Proudhon's  carefully  thought-out  and 
measured  organisation  of  society  by  demanding, 
under  Anarchy,  the  abolition  of  the  influence,  in 
social,  mental,  and  moral  life,  not  only  of  the  State 
and  the  Church,  but  also  in  like  manner  of  any  or 
all  external  dominion.  All  action,  he  declared, 
must  proceed  exclusively  from  the  internal  decision 
of  the  individual  acting  upon  the  external  world, 
and  not  vice  versa.  Action  which  did  not  proceed 
from  internal  impulse,  but  from  external — whether 
from  external  compulsion,  necessity,  desire  for  gain, 
or  enjoyment — was  "  not  free,"  and  thus  merely 
"  a  burden  or  a  vice."  This  cannot  be  the  case 
under  Anarchy,  for  there  every  work  will  bring  its 
own  reward  in  itself.  The  manner  and  duration  of 
a  man's  work  will  depend  entirely  on  his  inclination, 
thus  introducing  an  individual  arbitrary  will  un- 
known as  yet  to  Proudhon.  Society  will  offer  to 
each  just  as  much  as  he  "  reasonably  "  needs  for 
self-development  and  the  satisfaction  of  his  wants. 
As  the  means  of  introducing  "  Anarchism  "  Hess 
mentions  the  improvement  of  the  system  of  educa- 
tion, the  introduction  of  universal  suffrage,  and — a 


134  Anarchism 

thing  which  Proudhon  always  opposed — the  erection 
of  national  workshops. 

Karl  Griin,  however,  was  not  only  in  friendly  per- 
sonal relationship  with  Proudhon,  but  also  perfectly 
imbued  with  his  ideas.  Born  on  September  30, 
1817,  at  Ludenscheid,  in  Westphalia,  he  studied  at 
Bonn  and  Berlin,  and  later  became  a  teacher  of 
German  at  the  college  of  Colmar.  Later  he  founded 
in  Mannheim  the  radical  newspaper,  the  Mannheimer 
Zeitung,  and  when  expelled  from  Baden  and  Bavaria 
went  to  Cologne,  where  for  some  time  he  continued 
active  as  a  lecturer  and  journalist.  During  the 
winter  of  1844  and  1845  ^^  ^^^-d  made  the  acquaint- 
ance of  Proudhon  personally  in  Paris,  and  had  in- 
oculated him  with  Hegelian  philosophy,  and  in 
return  brought  back  Proudhon's  views  with  him  to 
Germany.  The  result  of  this  first  visit  to  Paris  was 
the  work  entitled.  The  Social  Movement  in  France 
and  Belgium,^  one  of  the  most  important  works  on 
advanced  Socialism  in  Germany,  which  made  known 
the  Socialist  views  of  Frenchmen,  and  especially  of 
Proudhon,  to  the  German  public  in  an  attractive 
form.  In  1849  Griin  made  another  stay  in  Paris. 
Returning  thence  to  Germany,  he  was  elected  a 
member  of  the  Prussian  National  Assembly ;  then, 
being  arrested  for  alleged  complicity  in  the  Palatin- 
ate rising,  was  at  length  acquitted  after  eight 
months'  imprisonment.     He  then  lived  in  Belgium 

'  Griin  wrote  many  works  on  literature  and  the  history  of  art,  and 
also  Louis  Napoleon  Bonaparte,  the  Sphinx  on  the  French  Throne 
(3d  ed.,  1866)  ;  France  before  the  yudgment  Seat  of  Europe  (i860)  ; 
Italy  (1861),  etc. 


Max  S timer  135 

and  Italy,  engaged  actively  in  literary  work;  later 
on  became  a  teacher  at  the  School  of  Commerce  in 
Frankfort,  visited  the  Rhine  towns  on  a  lecturing 
tour  from  1865  to  '68,  and  migrated  in  1868  to 
Vienna,  where  he  resided  till  his  death  in  1887. 

Griin  goes  farther  than  his  master  Proudhon,  and, 
like  Hess,  sowed  the  seed  of  the  Communist  Anarchy 
which  has  only  attained  its  full  growth  as  a  doctrine 
in  quite  recent  years.  In  this  he  totally  rejected 
the  principle  of  reward  or  wages  maintained  by 
Proudhon.  "  Proudhon  never  got  beyond  this  ob- 
stacle," he  says;  "  he  anticipates  it,  seeks  it,  he 
would  like  it,  he  introduces  it :  the  farther  associa- 
tion extends,  the  greater  the  number  of  workmen, 
the  less  becomes  the  work  of  each,  the  more  dis- 
tinction between  them  disappears.  That  is  a 
mathematical  proceeding,  not  social  or  human. 
What  distinction  is  to  disappear  ?  The  distinction 
among  producers  is  to  become  progressively  smaller. 
The  natural  distinction  of  capacity  which  society 
abolishes  by  the  social  equality  of  wages.  Preach 
the  social  freedom  of  consumption,  and  then  you 
have  at  once  the  true  freedom  of  production..  Re- 
verse the  case:  are  you  so  anxious  about  lack  of 
production  ?  Recent  progress  in  science  may  assure 
you.  Perhaps  children  up  to  fifteen  years  of  age 
would  be  able  to  perform  all  necessary  household 
duties  as  mere  guides  of  machinery — even  in  holiday 
attire,  as  a  game  of  play !  Everyone  is  paid  accord- 
ing to  what  he  produces,  and  the  production  of  each 
is  limited  by  the  right  of  all.  But  no !  no  limita- 
tion !     Let  us  have  no  right  of  all  against  the  right 


136  Anarchism 

of  the  individual.  On  the  contrary,  the  consump- 
tion of  each  is  guaranteed  by  the  consumption  of 
all.  The  production  of  one  is  not  paid  for  by  the 
product  of  another,  but  each  pays  out  of  the  com- 
mon product."*  We  shall  meet  with  the  same 
ideas  in  Kropotkin,  only  more  definite. 

Proudhon  found  an  ardent  disciple  in  Wilhelm 
Marr,  who  at  that  time  stood  at  the  head  of  the 
German  Democratic  Union  of  manual  workmen 
of  "  young  Germany  "  in  Switzerland.  Born  on 
May  6,  18 19,  at  Magdeburg,  Marr  was  originally  in- 
tended for  a  merchant's  calling,  but  after  his  stay  in 
Switzerland  (1841)  gave  it  up  entirely,  and  turned 
his  attention  to  a  political  and  literary  career.  At 
first,  attracted  by  Weitling's  Communism,  he  later 
on  came  into  decided  opposition  to  it  from  his  ac- 
centuation of  the  individualist  standpoint,  which 
he,  as  an  ardent  follower  of  Feuerbach,  pursued 
according  to  Proudhon 's  rather  than  Stirner's  views. 
In  conjunction  with  a  certain  Hermann  Doleke,  Marr 
endeavoured  to  instil  these  views  into  the  above- 
mentioned  Swiss  workmen's  unions.  His  pro- 
gramme was  quite  of  a  negative  character;  as  he 
himself  describes  it:  "  The  abolition  of  all  prevail- 
ing ideas  of  Religion,  State,  and  Society  was  the 
aim,  which  we  followed  with  a  full  knowledge  of  its 
logical  consequences,"  Doleke  called  it  the  "  the- 
ory of  no  consolation  "  ^  {Trostlosigkeits-theorie).  In 
December,  1844,  Marr  published  a  journal  in  Lau- 

'  Die  sociale  Bewegung,  p.  433.     Darmstadt,  1845. 
'  Wilhem  Marr,  Das  Junge  DeuUfhhnd  in  <i(r  SchvJeiz,  p.  135. 
l.eipsic,  1846. 


Max  S timer  137 

sanne  called  Pciges  of  the  Present  for  Social  Life 
{Blatter  der  Gegenwart  fiir  sociales  Leben),  to  pro- 
mote the  literary  acceptance  of  this  theory.  "  With 
remorseless  logic,"  says  Marr  himself  {Das  junge 
Deutschland,  p.  271)  "  we  attacked  not  only  existing 
institutions  in  State  and  Church,  but  State  and 
Church  themselves  in  general;  and  as  a  first  at- 
tempt, which  we  in  the  second  number  made  in  the 
shape  of  an  article  upon  the  Tschech  outrage,  pro- 
duced no  ill  consequences  for  us,  our  audacity  grew 
to  such  a  pitch  that  Doleke  often  preached  Atheism, 
and  the  word  '  Atheism  '  was  to  be  seen  at  the  head 
of  his  articles.  I  did  the  same  in  the  department 
of  social  criticism,  while,  following  the  example  of 
Proudhon,  I  put  before  my  readers  at  the  very  be- 
ginning the  final  consequences  of  my  argument." 
For  a  time  the  Government  did  not  interfere  with 
Marr's  propaganda,  but  in  July,  1845,  i^  stopped  the 
publication  of  his  journal,  and  Marr  was  soon  after 
expelled  from  the  country.  This  was  the  end  of  the 
results  of  his  propaganda  in  Switzerland ;  for  in  the 
popular  reflex  of  Marr's  doctrines  we  can  hardly 
find  more  than  the  Radicalism  of  German  Democrats, 
as  preached  by  Borne,  coloured  by  a  few  traces  of 
Proudhon's  teaching.  This  shade  of  opinion  was 
then  quite  modern ;  we  recognise  it  in  Alfred  Mei- 
sener,  Ludwig  Pfau,  and  the  Vienna  group,  even  in 
Borne,  who  died  in  the  forties  ;  the  doctrine  was 
part  of  the  spirit  of  the  age,  and  did  not  need  to  be 
derived  from  Proudhon. 

Wilhelm  Marr,  after  many  and  various  political 
metamorphoses,  took  sides  with  the  Anti-Semites, 


138  Anarchism 

and  acquired  the  unenviable  reputation  of  being 
one  of  the  literary  fathers  of  this  questionable 
movement.  Recently  he  has  again  abandoned  this 
movement,  and  living  embittered  in  retirement  in 
Hamburg,  has  once  more  devoted  the  flabby  sym- 
pathies of  his  old  age  to  the  Anarchist  ideals  of  his 
youth. 

Marr  forms  the  link  between  the  pure  theory  of 
Anarchism  and  active  Anarchist  agitation,  between 
the  older  generation  who  laid  down  the  principles 
and  the  modern  Anarchists.  The  acute  reaction 
following  upon  the  years  1848  and  '49  extinguished 
the  scanty  growth  that  had  sprung  from  the  seed 
sown  by  Proudhon  and  Stirner.  Only  when  in 
the  sixties,  with  the  reviving  Social-Democratic 
movement  there  naturally  arose  also  its  opposite, 
the  "  Anti-Authoritative  Socialism,"  did  men  pro- 
ceed to  complete  the  work  begun  by  Proudhon  and 
Stirner.  Recent  proceedings  in  this  direction  have, 
however,  not  only  not  added  any  essential  feature 
to  the  theory  of  Anarchism,  but  rather  have  ob- 
scured the  former  sharp  outlines  of  its  ideas,  and 
introduced  into  its  theory  elements  which  are  really 
quite  foreign  and  contradictory  to  it,  and  have  pre- 
vented that  peaceful  discussion  of  it  which  might 
be  advantageous  to  all  parties.  This  distinction 
between  the  older  and  the  more  modern  theorists 
of  Anarchism  is  most  clearly  marked  in  Bakunin 
with  his  introduction  of  "  Russian  influence  "  ;  with 
Bakunin  begins  the  theory  of  active  agitation. 


PART   II 


MODERN  ANARCHISM 


139 


CHAPTER   IV 


RUSSIAN  INFLUENCES 

The  Earliest  Signs  of  Anarchist  Views  in  Russia  in  1848 — The  Po- 
litical, Economic,  Mental,  and  Social  Circumstances  of  Anar- 
chism in  Russia — Michael  Bakunin  —  Biography  —  Bakunin's 
Anarchism — Its  Philosophic  Foundations — Bakunin's  Economic 
Programme — His  Views  as  to  the  Practicability  of  his  Plans — 
Sergei  Netschajew — The  Revolutionary  Catechism — The  Propa- 
ganda of  Action — Paul  Brousse. 

•' L'Eglise  et  rf  tat  sent 
Mes  deux  betes  noires." — Baktjnin. 


N  Russia  traces  of  Anarchist  views  are 
found  as  far  back  as  the  stormy- 
period  of  1848-49.  The  extent  of 
poverty,  both  mental  and  material, 
in  the  vast  dominion  of  the  Czar 
caused  the  Russian  people  to  be  less  ready  to  accept 
and  propagate  political  ideals  of  freedom  than  to 
comprehend  the  Socialist  doctrines  that  were  then 
first  springing  up  in  Western  Europe.  The  great 
movement  that  seized  upon  and  shook  all  Central 
and  Western  Europe  died  down  in  Russia  to  a  few 
isolated  centres  of  life,  and  was  felt  chiefly  in  secret 

141 


142  Anarchism 

debating  societies  which  eagerly  received  and  dis- 
seminated the  writings  of  Considerant,  Fourier, 
Saint-Simon,  Blanc,  and  Proudhon. 

The  reading  of  Proudhon's  works  was  even  under- 
taken as  a  duty  by  the  most  important  of  these 
societies,  the  so-called  "  Association  of  Petraschew- 
ski."  The  extent  to  which  his  teaching  impressed 
the  thoughtful  members  of  this  society,  which  in- 
cluded among  others  Dostojewski,  cannot  easily  be 
determined,  since  the  companions  of  Petraschewski, 
like  the  Nihilists  of  to-day,  have  always  liked  to 
preserve  a  certain  electicism.  However,  one  trace 
of  the  influence  of  Proudhon's  doctrines  upon  its 
members  is  distinctly  visible.  Thus,  an  associate, 
Lieutenant  Palma  of  the  Guards,  had  designed  a 
book  of  laws,  in  which  we  are  surprised  to  meet  the 
following  passage,  quite  in  the  Anarchist  vein: 
"  The  chief  distinctive  feature  of  man  is  that  he  is 
a  being  endowed  with  a  personality,  i.  e.,  with  rea- 
son and  freedom,  which  is  an  end  in  itself,  and 
ought  not  under  any  circumstances  to  be  regarded 
as  a  means  or  end  for  others.  From  the  idea  of 
personality  is  derived  the  idea  of  right.  I  may  do 
everything  that  I  please,  because  each  of  my  actions 
is  the  result  of  my  reason. "  Petraschewski  himself, 
in  a  satirical  Dictionary  which  he  published  under 
the  pseudonym  of  Kirilow,  praised  as  one  of  the 
merits  of  early  Christianity  the  abolition  of  private 
property  and  so  on.  We  can  easily  recognise  here 
the  elements  of  Proudhon's  and  Stirner's  Anarchism. 

In  spite  of  the  severe  prohibitive  system  that 
came  in  force  after  1848,  the  teachings  of  English 


Russian  Influences  143 

and  French  Socialists  penetrated  into  Russia  even 
in  this  period,  and  were  disseminated  by  such  emi- 
nent men  as  Tschernichevsky,  Dobrolinbow,  Herzen, 
Ogarjow,  and  others,  to  wider  circles,  and  again  we 
see  that  interest  is  chiefly  taken  in  Proudhon's  doc- 
trines. These  found  their  way  deep  into  the  heart 
of  the  masses,  even  to  the  peasants.  It  must  not 
be  forgotten  that  to  the  Russian  peasants,  with  their 
already  existing  collectivist  village  communities, 
Proudhon's  ideas  were  far  more  easy  to  understand 
than  an  educated  Frenchman  or  German  found 
them.  There  is  probably  no  country  in  the  world 
where  the  principles  of  "  federative  Socialism,"  as 
taught  by  Proudhon  and  later  by  Bakunin,  were 
better  understood  than  in  Russia,  and  Bakunin  even 
denied  the  necessity  of  a  Socialist  propaganda 
among  Russian  peasants,  because  he  said  that  they 
already  possessed  a  knowledge  of  its  elements. 

The  broad,  subterranean  stream  of  Nihilism, 
which,  swelling  from  these  small  beginnings  to  a 
dread  power  and  strength,  has  undermined  both 
feet  of  the  Colossus  of  the  Russian  Empire,  disap- 
pears here  from  our  view.  We  can  only  notice  in- 
dividual men  who,  separated  from  the  main  body  of 
the  movement,  made  ready  the  path  of  revolution 
in  their  native  land  while  living  as  voluntary  or  in- 
voluntary exiles  in  Western  Europe.  It  may  appear 
superfluous  to  remark  upon  the  important  rSle  played 
by  Russians  on  the  revolutionary  committees  of 
every  country.  And  in  no  revolutionary  movement 
have  they  gained  such  a  disastrous  influence  or 
played  such  a  leading  part  as  in  Anarchism.     When, 


144  Anarchism 

in  the  sixties,  Socialism,  with  its  organisation  of  the 
working-class  movement,  grew  up  side  by  side  with 
the  revival  of  political  Liberalism,  then,  too,  by  a 
natural  law,  arose  the  extreme  form  of  protest 
against  the  aggregation  of  human  society  by  Com- 
munism ;  the  Anarchist  doctrine  naturally  rose  up 
from  the  complete  oblivion  in  which  it  had  lain  for 
ten  years.  But  modern  Anarchism  celebrated  its 
renascence  in  a  totally  different  form:  times  and 
men  -had  changed ;  the  philosophic  period  was 
passed,  Stirner  was  dead,  and  Proudhon  near  his 
end ;  Russian  godfathers  stood  round  the  cradle  of 
modern  Anarchism.  Men  of  lofty  idealism,  who, 
impregnated  with  Western  culture,  with  bold  vio- 
lence, wished  to  anticipate  by  several  ages  the 
natural  development  of  mankind,  have  given  up  to 
Anarchy,  as  the  empire  of  perfect  and  free  personal- 
ity, their  whole  heart  and  mind.  But  those  who 
gave  to  this  doctrine — justified  to  some  extent,  like 
every  other  one-sided  view,  in  spite  of  all  its  ex- 
travagance, contradictions,  and  inherent  impossi- 
bility— the  sanction  of  the  dagger,  the  revolver, 
petroleum,  and  dynamite,  were  neither  Frenchmen 
nor  Germans,  but  the  half-civilised  barbarians  of  the 
East. 

The  older  form  of  Anarchism  is  marked  by  that 
lofty  idealism  which  was  the  general  mental  attitude 
of  civilised  Western  Europe  in  the  first  half  of  this 
century.  The  modern  Anarchism  of  Bakunin, 
Netschajew,  Kropotkin,  and  others,  is  branded  by 
the  semi-civilised  culture  of  Russia,  whose  only 
object  is  the  destruction  of  every  existing  state  of 


Russian  Influences  i45 

things,  and  indeed  under  existing  circumstances 
it  cannot 'be  otherwise.  Dislike  of,  and  discontent 
with  real  or  fancied  grievances,  combined  with  a 
stiff-necked,  doctrinaire  attitude  unprepared  for  any 
sacrificio  del  intelletto,  may  indeed  lead  the  children 
of  Western  civilisation  to  a  logical  denial  of  the  ex- 
isting order  of  society.  But  from  this  to  the  actual 
overthrow  of  all  existing  conditions  is  a  still  farther 
step ;  and  the  positive  intention  of  annihilating  the 
infinite  mental  and  material  inheritance  which  is  the 
outcome  of  civilisation,  and  which  is  not  even  de- 
nied by  Anarchists  themselves,  could  only  be  con- 
ceived by  a  few  degenerate  individuals  who  could 
only  wish  to  see  themselves  vis-h-vis  de  rien  because 
of  their  own  utter  lack  of  moral,  intellectual,  or  ma- 
terial possessions.  Against  these  individuals  there 
will  always  be  arrayed  an  overwhelming  majority, 
who  are  ready  to  pledge  the  whole  weight  of  their 
superiority  in  culture  for  these  possessions  and 
guarantees  of  the  undeniable  progress  of  mankind. 

It  is  different  in  Russia.  The  political  and  social, 
the  mental  and  moral  conditions  of  this  large  but 
barbarian  empire  do  not  afford  much  opportunity 
for  the  growth  even  of  a  moderate  amount  of  con- 
servatism. For  what  can  there  be  to  conserve,  to 
maintain,  or  to  improve  in  those  lives  that  depend 
on  the  mere  sign  of  a  bloodthirsty  and  savage  des- 
potism, in  that  society  that  has  hardly  raised  itself 
from  the  primitive  tribal  level,  in  those  rotten 
national  economics,  trade  and  industry,  in  a  spiritual 
life  groaning  under  the  banner  of  orthodoxy  and  an 
arbitrary  police,  of  popes  and  Tschinowniks  ?     Must 


146  Anarchism 

not  the  only  possible  way,  the  inevitable  presuppo- 
sition of  any  possible  improvement  be  a  desire  for  a 
total  and  universal  overthrow,  a  radical  annihilation 
of  all  these  conditions  that  render  life  and  develop- 
ment impossible  ?  The  Russian  need  not  shrink 
from  the  thought  that  all  present  conditions  should 
be  annihilated,  for  when  he  looks  round  about  him 
he  finds  nothing  that  his  heart  would  care  to  pre- 
serve; and  the  higher  he  ranks  in  the  mental  or 
social  sphere,  the  stronger  must  this  "  Nihilist  " 
feeling  naturally  become.  We  who  are  citizens  of 
a  State  that,  with  all  its  faults,  is  yet  richly  blessed 
by  civilisation,  show  our  comprehension  of  these 
facts  by  regarding  with  a  milder  and  more  sympa- 
thetic glance  the  acts  of  a  few  desperate  men  in 
Russia,  which  we  should  condemn  severely  if  they 
occurred  under  the  happier  circumstances  that  sur- 
round ourselves.  In  fact,  nothing  is  more  natural 
— lamentable  as  it  may  be — than  that,  under  cir- 
cumstances such  as  those  of  Russia,  revolutionary 
Radicalism  should  assume  this  purely  negative 
"  Nihilist  "  and  murderously  destructive  character 
in  the  desperate  struggle  of  the  individual  against  a 
society  that  is  totally  degenerate. 

"Among  us,"  says  Stepniak,'  "a  revolution  or 
even  a  rising  of  any  importance,  such  as  those  in 
Paris,  is  absolutely  impossible.  Our  towns  contain 
barely  a  tenth  of  the  total  population,  and  most  of 
them  are  merely  great  villages,  miles  and  miles  away 
one  from  another.     The  real  towns,  such  as,  e.  g.^ 

'  Underground  Russia,  3d  edition,  pp.  34  ff.  and  41.  London, 
1890. 


Russian  Influences  147 

those  of  from  io,(XX)  or  15,000  inhabitants,  contain 
only  4  or  5  per  cent,  of  the  total  population — that  is, 
about  three  or  four  million  people.  And  the  Gov- 
ernment which  rules  over  the  military  contingent  of 
the  whole  people — that  is,  over  1,200,000  soldiers 
— can  transform  the  five  or  six  chief  towns,  the  only 
places  where  any  movement  would  be  possible,  into 
veritable  camps,  as  is  indeed  the  case.  Against 
such  a  Government  any  means  are  permissible ;  for 
it  is  no  longer  the  guardian  of  the  people's  will  or 
even  of  the  will  of  a  majority.  It  is  injustice  organ- 
ised ;  a  citizen  need  respect  it  no  more  than  a  band 
of  highway  robbers.  But  how  can  we  shake  off  this 
Camarilla  that  shelters  itself  behind  a  forest  of 
bayonets  ?  How  can  we  free  the  country  from  it  ? 
Since  it  is  absolutely  impossible  to  remove  this  hin- 
drance by  force,  as  in  other  more  fortunate  coun- 
tries, a  flank  movement  was  necessary  in  order  to 
attack  this  Camarilla  before  it  could  make  use  of  its 
power,  which  thus  was  made  useless  in  fruitless 
positions.  Thus  Terrorism  arose.  Nurtured  in 
hatred,  suckled  by  patriotism  and  hope,  it  grew  up 
in  an  electric  atmosphere,  filled  by  the  enthusiasm 
that  is  awakened  by  a  noble  deed." 

These  same  features  were  necessarily  assumed  in 
Russia  by  Anarchist  doctrines,  which  from  their 
very  nature  found  a  friendly  and  (as  we  have  seen) 
an  early  reception,  and  were  practically  incorporated 
with  NihiHsm,  but,  as  must  be  distinctly  noted, 
without  becoming  identical  with  it,  or  even  forming 
an  essential  and  integral  part  of  it.  In  fact,  we  find 
in  avowed  Nihilists  and  Panslavists,  such  as  Herzen, 


148  Anarchism 

the  fundamental  Anarchist  ideas  present  just  as 
much  as  in  Bakunin  and  Kropotkin,  whose  Anarch- 
ism was  superior  to  their  Panslavism.  In  his  book, 
After  the  Storm  {Aprh  la  TempSte),  composed  under 
the  impression  made  by  the  disappointed  hopes  and 
expectations  of  1848,  Herzen  exclaimed:  "  Let  all 
the  world  perish!  Long  live  Chaos  and  Destruc- 
tion " ;  and  in  a  work  that  appeared  almost  at  the 
same  time,  The  Republic  One  and  Indivisible,  he 
attacked  the  Republican  form  of  government  as 
"  the  last  dream  of  the  old  world,"  which  yet  could 
not  succeed  in  carrying  out  the  great  fundamental 
law  of  social  justice.  Only  when  this  has  become 
really  a  truth,  only  when  there  is  an  end  of  men 
being  devoured  by  men,  will  humanity,  born  again, 
rise  free  and  happy  from  the  ruins  of  this  present 
cursed  social  structure:  "  Spring  will  come;  young, 
fresh  life  will  blossom  on  the  graves  of  the  races  who 
have  died  as  victims  of  injustice;  nations  will  rise 
up  full  of  chaotic  but  healthy  forces.  A  new  volume 
of  the  world's  history  will  begin."  The  share  of 
Nihilism  in  such  ideas  cannot  be  borrowed  alto- 
gether from  Western  Anarchism.  There  was  per- 
haps a  mutual  interaction  of  intellectual  growth. 
But  one  gift  Anarchism  certainly  did  receive  from 
Nihilism:  "the  propaganda  of  action"  does  not 
spring  from  the  logical  development  of  Proudhon's 
and  Stirner's  ideas,  and  cannot  be  extorted  or  ex- 
tracted from  it  in  any  way ;  it  is  rather  the  conse- 
quence of  the  mixture  of  these  ideas  with  Nihilism, 
a  result  of  Russian  conditions.  This  was  the  pretty 
embellishment  with  which  the  West  received  back 


Russian  Influences  149 

Anarchism  from  Russian  hands  in  the  era  of  the 
sixties  and  seventies.  Bakunin  was  entrusted  with 
the  gloomy  mission  of  handing  this  gift  over  to  us, 
and  it  is  noticeable  that  in  Bakunin — as  in  Nihilism 
generally — Anarchism  by  no  means  takes  up  that 
exclusively  commanding  position  as  in  Proudhon, 
with  whom  he  yet  is  so  closely  connected. 

Michael  Bakunin  was  born  in  1814  at  Torschok  in 
the  Russian  province  of  Tver,  being  a  scion  of  a 
family  of  good  position  belonging  to  the  old  nobil- 
ity. An  uncle  of  Bakunin's  was  an  ambassador 
under  Catherine  II.,  and  he  was  also  connected  by 
marriage  with  Muravieff.  He  was  educated  at  the 
College  of  Cadets  in  St.  Petersburg,  and  joined  the 
Artillery  in  1832  as  an  ensign.  But  either,  as  some 
say,  because  he  did  not  get  into  the  Guards,  or,  as 
others  say,  because  he  could  not  endure  the  rough 
terrorism  of  military  life,  he  left  the  army  in  1838, 
and  returned  first  to  his  father's  house,  where  he 
devoted  himself  to  scientific  studies.  In  1841  Ba- 
kunin went  to  Berlin,  and  next  year  to  Dresden, 
where  he  studied  philosophy,  chiefly  Hegel's  but 
was  also  introduced  by  Ruge  into  the  German 
democratic  movement.  Even  at  that  time  he  had 
come  to  the  conclusion  (in  an  essay  in  the  Deutschen 
Jahrbucher  on  **The  Reaction  in  Germany  ")  that 
Democracy  must  proceed  to  the  denial  of  everything 
positive  and  existing,  without  regard  for  conse- 
quences. Pursued  by  Russian  agents,  he  went  in 
1843  to  Paris,  and  thence  to  Switzerland,  where  he 
became    an    active    member    of    the    Communist- 


150  Anarchism 

Socialist  movement.  The  Russian  Government 
now  refused  him  permission  to  stay  abroad  any 
longer,  and  as  he  did  not  obey  repeated  commands 
to  return  to  his  native  land,  it  confiscated  his  prop- 
erty. From  Zurich,  Bakunin  returned  a  second 
time  to  Paris,  and  made  the  acquaintance  of  Proud- 
hon.  If  here  was  laid  the  foundation  for  his  later 
Anarchist  views,  we  still  find  him  active  in  another 
political  direction.  In  a  high-flown  speech  made  at 
the  Polish  banquet  on  the  anniversary  of  the  War- 
saw Revolution  (29th  November,  1847),  Bakunin 
recommended  the  union  of  Russia  and  Poland  in 
order  to  revolutionise  the  former.  The  Russian 
Government  thereupon  demanded  his  extradition, 
and  set  a  price  of  ten  thousand  silver  roubles  on 
his  head.  In  spite  of  this,  Bakunin  escaped  safely 
to  Brussels.  After  the  Revolution  of  February,  he 
returned  to  Paris,  then  went  in  March  to  Berlin, 
and  in  June  to  attend  the  Slav  Congress  in  Prague. 
The  question  has  not  unnaturally  been  raised, 
What  had  Bakunin  the  cosmopolitan  to  do  at  such 
an  institution  of  national  Chauvinism  as  the  Con- 
gress ?  What  had  the  ultra-radical  Democrat  and 
sworn  enemy  of  the  Czar  to  do  with  a  congress  held 
by  the  favour  of  Nicholas,  and  visited  by  orthodox 
Archimandrites,  by  the  envoys  of  Slav  princes,  and 
privy  councillors  decorated  with  Russian  orders  ? 
When  the  drama  at  Prague  ended  with  a  sanguinary 
insurrection  and  the  bombardment  of  Prague,  Ba- 
kunin disappeared,  only  to  re-appear  again,  now  in 
Saxony  and  now  in  Thuringia,  under  all  kinds  of 
disguises,  and  (as  those  who  are  well-informed  main- 


Russian  Influences  151 

tain) '  constantly  occupied  with  the  intention  of 
causing  a  new  insurrection  at  Prague.  Here  too  he 
was  in  contradiction  with  the  attitude  that  he  had 
adopted  both  before  and  after  this  event,  for  he 
must  have  known  what  a  sorry  part  the  Czechs  had 
played  and  still  were  playing  as  regards  the  Vienna 
Democracy  and  the  efforts  for  Hungarian  emanci- 
pation. 

During  the  insurrection  in  May,  1849,  "^^  ^^id 
Bakunin  in  Dresden,  as  a  member  of  the  provisional 
government,  and  taking  a  prominent  part  in  the 
defence  of  the  city  against  the  Prussian  troops. 
Bakunin  here  appears  as  a  champion  of  the  very 
same  cause  that  he  had  attacked  at  the  Prague 
Congress.  After  the  fall  of  Dresden  he  went  with 
the  provisional  government  to  Chemnitz,  where  on 
the  loth  of  May  he  was  captured  and  condemned  to 
death  by  martial  law.  The  sentence,  however,  was 
not  carried  out,  since  Austria  had  demanded  his  ex- 
tradition. Here  he  was  also  condemned  at  Olmutz 
to  be  hanged ;  but  Austria  handed  this  offender, 
who  was  so  much  in  request,  over  to  Russia,  which 
country  also  wished  to  get  hold  of  him.  By  a  re- 
markable chance,  Bakunin  escaped  the  death  to 
which  here  also  he  was  condemned,  by  receiving  a 
pardon  from  the  Czar;  he  was  imprisoned  first  in 
the  fortress  of  SS.  Peter  and  Paul,  and  then  at  that 
of  Schliisselburg ;  and  in  1855,  through  the  exer- 
tions of  his  influential  relatives,  was  banished  to 
Siberia.     At  that  time  a  report  had  generally  gained 

'  Karl  Blind,  "  Vater  des  Anarchismus  "  (Personliche  Erinnerun- 
gen),  4  feujlletons  in  the  Ne%te  Freie  Presse,  1894, 


152  Anarchism 

credence  in  Europe,  although  lacking  any  founda- 
tion, that  Bakunin  had  by  no  means  owed  his  life, 
that  three  countries  had  already  condemned,  to  the 
chance  favour  of  a  monarch  usually  far  from 
gracious ;  and  the  distrust  of  the  apostle  of  Revolu- 
tion was  still  more  greatly  increased  when,  in  1861, 
he  succeeded  in  escaping  from  the  penal  settlement 
in  the  Amur  district,  and  returned  to  Europe  via 
Japan  and  America.  Now  the  otherwise  mysterious 
success  of  this  escape  has  been  explained.  The 
Governor  of  the  Amur  (Muravieff-Amurski)  hap- 
pened to  be  a  cousin  of  Bakunin's  relation,  Mura- 
vieff,  and  moreover  (according  to  Bakunin's  own 
statement),'  a  secret  adherent  of  the  revolutionary 
movement.  He  appears  to  have  lived  on  a  very 
intimate  footing  with  Bakunin,  and  granted  the  exile 
all  kinds  of  favours  and  freedom ;  and  thus  Bakunin 
was  entrusted  with  the  mission  of  travelling  through 
Siberia  in  order  to  describe  its  natural  resources. 
While  on  this  journey  he  succeeded  in  embarking 
on  a  ship  in  the  harbour  of  Nikolajewsk,  and  escap- 
ing. In  1 861  he  arrived  in  England,  and  settled 
in  London,  where  he  entered  into  relations  with  the 
members  of  the  "  International."  As  to  the  part 
that  Bakunin  played   here,  as  he  did  later,  as  an 

'  There  is  a  kind  of  autobiography  for  the  period  1849-60,  by 
Bakunin  himself  in  a  letter,  dated  from  Irkutsk  (8th  December,  i860) 
to  Herzen.  Michael  Bakunin's  Social-Political  Correspondence  with 
Alexander  Iw.  Herzen  and  Ogarjow,  with  a  biographical  introduc- 
tion, appendices,  and  notes  by  Professor  Michael  Dragomanofif. 
Authorised  translation  from  the  Russian,  by  Dr.  Boris  Minzes,  Stutt- 
gart, 1895  {Bibl.  russicher  Denkwiirdigkeiien,  edited  by  Dr.  Th. 
^(hiemann,  vol.  vi.),  No.  6,  pp.  29  and  99. 


Russian  Influences  153 

agitator  for  Anarchist  ideas,  we  will  speak  later 
when  we  come  to  the  history  of  the  spread  of  An- 
archism. 

When  the  Revolution  broke  out  in  Poland  in 
1863,  Bakunin  was  one  of  the  leaders  of  the  expe- 
dition of  Polish  and  Russian  emigrants  that  was 
planned  in  Stockholm,  and  which  was  to  revolution- 
ise Russia  from  the  Baltic  coast.  When  this  attempt 
also  failed,  he  stayed  sometimes  in  Russia  and 
sometimes  in  Italy,  devoting  himself  to  Socialist 
agitation,  and  being  always  on  every  favourable 
opportunity  active  either  as  an  apostle  of  Anarchist 
doctrine  or  as  an  agitator  in  the  preparations  and 
mise-en-schie  of  a  revolution.  We  shall  speak  of  this 
later.  The  last  years  of  his  life  were  spent  alter- 
nately in  Geneva,  Locarno,  and  Bern,  where  he  died 
on  July  I,  1878,  at  the  hospital,  after  refusing  all 
nourishment,  and  thus  hastening  his  end. 

The  Anarchist  epoch  of  his  life  is  included  mainly 
in  the  last  ten  years  of  his  career,  so  fertile  in  mis- 
takes and  changes  of  opinion.  Anarchism  owes  its 
renascence  to  his  active  agitation,  regardless  of  all 
consequences;  and  even  in  his  writings  the  thinker 
lags  far  behind  the  agitator.  Bakunin  at  best  could 
only  be  called  the  theorist  of  action ;  his  activity  as 
an  author  was  limited  to  scattered  articles  in  journals 
and  a  few  (mostly  fragmentary)  pamphlets.  He  was 
right  in  his  answer  to  those  critics  who  reproached 
him  with  this:  "  My  life  itself  is  but  a  fragment." 
Where  could  he  have  found  in  his  life-long  wander- 
ings the  peaceful  leisure  in  which  to  develop  his 
thoughts  quietly  or  to  express  them  in  a  work  such  as 


154  Anarchism 

Froudhon' s  J^us/tce  or  Stirner's  Einziger  ?  Besides, 
he  lacked  the  gift  of  mental  depth  and  firmly 
grounded  knowledge.  His  style  possesses  some- 
thing of  his  fluency  as  a  demagogue,  but  his  pro- 
cedure in  science  reminds  of  the  soaring  dialectics 
of  the  revolutionary  orator,  full  of  repetitions,  and 
attractive  rather  than  convincing.  In  his  case  a 
pose  always  takes  the  place  of  an  argument. 

It  is  said  that  during  the  period  of  his  association 
with  the  "  International  "  Bakunin  had  had  the  in- 
tention of  setting  forth  his  ideas  in  two  large  works, 
one  of  which  would  have  been  a  criticism  of  the  ex- 
isting arrangements  of  the  State,  property,  and  re- 
ligion, while  the  other  would  have  treated  of  the 
problems  of  the  European  nations,  especially  the 
Slavs,  and  have  shown  their  solution  by  social  revolu- 
tion and  anarchy.  But,  of  course,  these  two  works 
were  never  written,  and  there  remain  to  us  only  some 
remnants  of  numerous  fragmentary  and  formless 
manuscripts,  originating  in  the  period  of  1863-73. 
Among  these  is  a  Catechism  of  Modern  Freemasonry, 
the  Revolutionary  Catechisms,  not  to  be  compared 
with  the  later  catechism  of  Netschajew,  which  was 
wrongly  ascribed  to  Bakunin ;  also  the  wordy  essay 
on  Federation,  Socialism,  and  Atiti-theology,  which  as 
a  proposal  designed  for  the  central  committee  of  the 
League  of  Freedom  and  Peace  at  Geneva,  but  never 
published,  presents  a  short  reprint  of  Proudhon's 
Justice;  and  lastly,  a  fragment  published  in  1882 
by  C.  Cafiero  and  Elis^e  Reclus,  after  his  manuscript, 
Dieu  et  I ' Etat,  which  seems  intended  to  lay  a  philo- 
sophic foundation  for  Bakunin's  Anarchism, 


Russian  Influences  155 

This  fragment,  in  which  Bakunin  follows  the  lead 
of  the  great  materialists  and  Darwinians,  begins 
with  Hegelianism.  Man  (it  says)  is  of  animal  origin ; 
all  development  proceeds  from  the  "  animal  nature  " 
of  man,  and  strives  to  reach  the  negation  of  this,  or 
humanity.  "  Animality  "  is  the  starting-point; 
"  humanity,"  its  opposite,  is  the  goal  of  develop- 
ment. The  first  human  being,  the  pitheco-anthropus, 
distinguished  itself,  according  to  Bakunin,  from 
other  apes,  by  two  gifts :  the  capacity  for  thinking, 
and,  thereby,  for  raising  itself.  Bakunin,  therefore, 
distinguishes  three  elements  in  all  life :  (i)  animality ; 
(2)  thought ;  and  (3)  rising.  To  the  first  corresponds 
social  and  private  economy ;  to  the  second,  science ; 
to  the  third,  freedom.  After  establishing  these 
peculiar  categories,  Bakunin  never  troubles  about 
them  again  throughout  his  book,  and  does  not  know 
what  use  to  make  of  them ;  they  were  nothing  but 
a  pretty  philosophic  pose,  sand  thrown  in  one's  eyes. 
He  goes  farther,  and  declares  next  that  he  intends 
to  penetrate  into  the  reason  "  of  the  idealism  of 
Mazzini,  Michelet,  Quinet,  and  [stc  /]  Stuart  Mill." 
Again  we  hear  nothing  more  throughout  this  frag- 
mentary work  of  the  thus  announced  refutation  of 
Mill's  idealism.  It  is  limited  to  giving  a  rather 
shallow  reproduction  of  Proudhon's  contrast  between 
religion  and  revolution. 

"  The  idea  of  God,"  says  Bakunin,  "  implies  the 
abdication  of  human  reason  and  justice;  it  is  the 
most  decisive  denial  of  human  freedom,  and  leads 
necessarily  to  the  enslaving  of  humanity,  both  in 
theory  and  practice.     .     .     .     The  freedom  of  man 


156  Anarchism 

consists  solely  in  following  natural  laws,  because  he 
has  recognised  them  himself  as  such,  and  not  be- 
cause they  are  imposed  upon  him  from  without  by 
the  will  of  another,  whether  divine  or  human,  col- 
lective or  individual We  reject  all  legis- 
lation, every  authority,  and  every  privileged,  recog- 
nised official  and  legal  influence,  even  if  it  has 
proceeded  from  the  exercise  of  universal  suffrage, 
since  it  could  only  benefit  a  ruling  and  exploiting 
minority  against  the  interests  of  the  great  enslaved 
majority."     And  so  forth. 

Here  already,  in  this  partial  repetition  of  Proud- 
hon's  views,  we  see  Bakunin  go  far  beyond  Proudhon 
in  an  essential  point,  the  question  of  universal 
suffrage.  Proudhon  had  already  perceived  in  "  the 
organisation  of  universal  suffrage  "  the  only  possible 
means  of  realising  his  views.  Bakunin  rejects  this 
view,  and,  as  will  be  shown  later,  this  question 
formed  the  chief  stumbling-block  in  his  differences 
with  the  "  International."  But  in  a  much  more  im- 
portant and  decisive  point  Bakunin  goes  farther 
than  Proudhon,  or  rather  sinks  behind  him. 

Proudhon  always  based  all  his  hopes  on  the  diffu- 
sion of  knowledge ;  the  demo-cracy  was  to  be  changed 
into  a  demo-paedy,  and  thus  gradually  led  up  to  An- 
archy of  its  own  accord.  Bakunin  anathematises 
knowledge  just  as  much  as  religion ;  for  it  also  en- 
slaves men.  "  What  I  preach,"  he  says  in  the  book 
quoted,  "is  to  a  certain  extent  the  revolt  of  life 
against  knowledge,  or  rather  against  the  domination 
of  knowledge,  not  in  order  to  do  away  with  know- 
ledge— that  would  be  a  crime  of  high  treason  against 


Russian  Influences  157 

humanity  {Icbscb  humanitatis) — but  in  order  to  bring 
it  back  to  its  place  so  surely  that  it  would  never 
leave  it  again.  .  .  .  The  only  vocation  of 
knowledge  is  to  illuminate  our  path;  life  alone,  in 
its  full  activity,  can  create,  when  freed  from  all  fet- 
ters of  dominion  and  doctrine."  He  also  thinks 
that  knowledge  should  become  the  common  posses- 
sion of  all,  but  to  the  question  as  to  whether  men 
should,  until  this  takes  place,  follow  the  directions 
of  knowledge,  he  answers  at  once,  "  No,  not  at  all." 

In  these  two  divergences  from  Proudhon  lies  the 
essential  difference  between  the  modern  and  the 
older  Anarchism.  Bakunin  rejects  the  proposal  to 
bring  about  Anarchy  gradually  by  a  process  of 
political  transformation  by  means  of  the  use  of 
universal  suffrage,  equally  with  the  gradual  educa- 
tion of  mankind  up  to  this  form  of  society  by  know- 
ledge. Not  by  evolution,  but  by  revolt,  revolution, 
and  similar  means  is  Anarchy  to  be  installed  to-day 
— Anarchy  in  the  sense  of  the  setting  free  of  all 
those  elements  which  we  now  include  under  the 
name  of  evil  qualities,  and  the  annihilation  of  all 
that  is  termed  "  public  order."  Everything  else 
will  look  after  itself. 

Bakunin  wisely  did  not  enter  into  descriptions  of 
the  future:  "  All  talk  about  the  future  is  criminal, 
for  it  hinders  pure  destruction,  and  steers  the  course 
of  revolution."  His  views  as  to  the  nearest  goal, 
after  general  expropriation  and  the  annihilation  of 
all  powers,  are  almost  exclusively  derived  from 
Proudhon's,  and  at  most  go  beyond  them  only  in 
so  far  as  Bakunin  does  not  recognise  as  obligatory 


158  Anarchism 

that  coalescence  of  "  productive  "  groups  into  a 
higher  collective  entity,  which  Proudhon  regarded 
as  an  organic  society,  but  merely  allows  them  to  re- 
main as  groups.  If  several  such  local  groups  wish 
to  unite  into  a  larger  association,  this  might  be  done, 
but  no  compulsion  must  thereby  be  exercised  upon 
individuals.  The  influence  of  Stirner,  with  whom 
Bakunin  was  acquainted  before  1840,  must  account 
for  this.  We  recognise  Bakunin's  theory  best  and 
most  authentically  from  the  following  extract,  in 
which  he  comprises  it  in  the  programme  of  the 
"  Alliance  de  la  Democratic  Socialiste  "  of  Geneva,' 
founded  by  himself.     It  runs  thus : 

1.  The  alliance  professes  atheism;  it  aims  at  the 
abolition  of  religious  services;  the  replacement  of 
belief  by  knowledge,  and  divine  by  human  justice; 
and  the  abolition  of  marriage  as  a  political,  religious, 
judicial,  and  civic  arrangement. 

2.  Before  all  it  aims  at  the  definite  and  complete 
abolition  of  all  classes,  and  the  political,  economic, 
and  social  equality  of  the  individual,  of  either  sex ; 
and  to  attain  this  end  it  demands,  before  all,  the 
abolition  of  inheritance,  in  order  that  for  the  future 
usufruct  may  depend  on  what  each  produces,  and 
that,  in  accordance  with  the  decision  of  the  last 
Congress  of  Workmen  at  Brussels  [in  1868],  the 
land,  the  instruments  of  production,  as  well  as  all 
other  capital,  can  only  be  used  by  the  workers,  /.  e., 
by  the  agricultural  and  industrial  communities. 

3.  It  demands  for  all  children  of  both  sexes,  from 
their  birth  onwards,  equality  of  the  means  of  devel- 

'  Compare  the  chapter  on  "  The  Spread  of  Anarchy." 


Russian  Influences  159 

opment,  education,  and  instruction  in  all  stages 
of  knowledge,  industry,  and  art,  with  the  general 
object  that  this  equality,  at  first  only  economic  and 
social,  will  ultimately  result  in  producing  more  and 
more  a  greater  natural  equality  of  individuals,  by 
causing  to  disappear  all  those  artificial  inequaHties 
which  are  the  historic  products  of  a  social  organisa- 
tion which  is  as  false  as  it  is  unjust. 

4.  As  an  enemy  of  all  despotism,  recognising  no 
other  form  of  policy  than  Republicanism,  and  reject- 
ing unconditionally  every  reactionary  alliance,  it  re- 
jects all  political  action  that  does  not  aim  directly 
and  immediately  at  the  triumph  of  the  cause  of 
labour  against  capital. 

5.  It  recognises  that  all  existing  political  States, 
having  authority,  by  gradually  confining  themselves 
to  merely  administrative  functions  of  the  public  ser- 
vice in  their  respective  countries,  will  be  immerged 
into  the  universal  union  of  free  associations,  both 
agricultural  and  industrial. 

6.  Since  the  social  question  can  only  be  solved, 
definitely  and  effectively,  on  the  basis  of  the  uni- 
versal and  international  solidarity  of  the  workmen 
of  all  countries,  the  alliance  rejects  any  policy  founded 
on  so-called  patriotism  and  the  rivalry  of  nations. 

7.  It  desires  the  universal  association  of  all  local 
associations  by  means  of  freedom.'  The  question  as 
to  how  this  Anarchist  condition  of  society,  which 
Bakunin  himself  described  as"  amorphism,"  was  to 
be  brought  about  has  been  answered  in  no  dubious 

'  Testut  Oscar,  Die  Internationale,  ihr  Wesen  und  ihre  Bestre- 
bungen. 


i6o  Anarchism 

fashion  by  Bakunin  and  his  adherents  in  deeds  of 
violence,  such  as  that  attempted  by  the  leader  him- 
self in  the  Lyons  riot  of  1870  and  the  occurrences  in 
Spain  in  1873.'  Bakunin  tried  to  deceive  himself 
into  thinking  that  he  deplored  the  violence  that  was 
sometimes  necessary,  and  wrapped  himself  in  the 
protecting  cloak  of  the  believer  in  evolution,  who 
would  wake  up  some  fine  morning  and  find  that 
Anarchy  had  become  an  accomplished  fact.  By 
passive  resistance  in  politics  and  economics,  by  com- 
plete abstention  from  politics,  and  by  a  "  universal 
strike,"  Anarchy  would  suddenly  come  into  being  of 
itself.  At  the  proper  time  all  the  workmen  of  every 
industry  of  a  country,  or  indeed  of  the  whole  world, 
would  stop  work,  and  thereby,  in  at  most  a  month, 
would  compel  the  "  possessing"  classes  either  to 
enter  voluntarily  into  a  new  form  of  social  order, 
or  else  to  fire  upon  the  workmen,  and  thus  give 
them  the  right  to  defend  themselves,  and  at  this 
opportunity  to  upset  entirely  the  whole  of  the  old 
order  of  society.  Again  we  see  that  force  is  the 
ultimate  resort;  nor  could  it  be  otherwise  after 
Bakunin  had  uncompromisingly  rejected  every  at- 
tempt to  arrive  gradually  at  his  ideal  end  by  means 
of  political  and  intellectual  progress.  In  the  Letter 
to  a  Frenchman  he  confesses  the  true  character  of 
the  revolution  which  he  advocates : 

"  Of  course  matters  will  not  be  settled  quite 
peacefully  at  first,"  he  says;  "  there  will  be  battles; 

'  Friedrich  Engels,  Die  Bakunisten  an  der  Arbeit,  Denkschrift 
iiber  den  Aufstand  in  Spanien  im  Winter,  1873  I  reprinted  in  Inter- 
nationales aus  dem  Volkstaate  (1871-75),  Berlin,  1894. 


Russian  Influences  i6i 

public  order,  the  sacred  arche  of  the  bourgeois,  will  be 
disturbed,  and  the  first  facts  that  will  emerge  from 
such  a  state  of  affairs  can  only  end  in  what  people 
like  to  call  a  civil  war.  For  the  rest,  do  not  be 
afraid  that  the  peasants  will  mutually  devour  each 
other;  even  if  they  attempt  to  do  so  at  first,  it  will 
not  be  long  before  they  are  convinced  of  the  obvi- 
ous impossibility  of  continuing  in  this  way,  and  then 
we  may  be  certain  that  they  will  attempt  to  unite 
among  themselves,  to  agree  and  to  organise.  The 
need  of  food  and  of  feeding  their  families,  and  (as  a 
consequence  of  this)  of  protecting  their  houses, 
family,  and  their  own  life  against  unforeseen  attacks 
— all  this  will  compel  them  to  enter  upon  the  path 
of  mutual  adjustment.  Nor  need  we  believe,  either, 
that  in  this  adjustment,  that  has  been  come  to  with- 
out any  public  guardianship  of  the  State,  the  strong- 
est and  richest  will  exert  a  preponderating  influence 
by  the  mere  force  of  circumstances.  The  wealth  of 
the  rich  will  cease  to  be  a  power  as  soon  as  it  is  no 
longer  secured  by  legal  arrangements.  As  to  the 
strongest  and  most  cunning,  they  will  be  rendered 
harmless  by  the  collective  power  of  the  multitude  of 
small  and  very  small  peasants :  so,  too,  in  the  case  of 
the  rural  proletariat,  who  are  to-day  merely  a  multi- 
tude given  over  to  dumb  misery,  but  who  will  be 
provided  by  the  revolutionary  movement  with  an  irre- 
sistible power.  I  do  not  assert  that  the  rural  districts 
that  will  thus  have  to  reorganise  themselves  from  top 
to  bottom  will  create  all  at  once  an  ideal  organisation 
which  will  in  all  respects  correspond  to  our  dreams. 
But  of  this  I  am  convinced,  that  it  will  be  a  living 


1 62  Anarchism 

organisation,  and,  as  such,  a  thousand  times  superior 
to  that  which  now  exists.  Besides,  this  new  organ- 
isation, since  it  is  always  open  to  the  propaganda 
of  the  towns,  and  can  no  longer  be  fettered  and  so 
to  speak  petrified  by  the  legal  sanctions  of  the  State, 
will  advance  freely  and  develop  and  improve  itself, 
in  ways  that  are  uncertain,  yet  always  with  life  and 
freedom,  and  never  merely  by  decrees  and  laws,  till 
it  reaches  a  standpoint  that  is  as  rational  as  we 
could  possibly  hope  at  the  present  day." 

Bakunin  has  expressly  excepted  secret  societies 
and  plots  from  the  means  of  bringing  about  this 
revolution.  But  this  did  not  hinder  him  from  be- 
coming himself,  as  occasion  suited,  the  head  of  a 
secret  society,  formed  according  to  all  the  rules  of 
the  conspirator's  art. 

Fundamentally  opposed  as  our  minds  must  be 
to  men  like  Proudhon  and  Stirner,  we  yet  readily 
recognise  in  them  their  undoubted  personal  talents, 
both  of  mind,  spirit,  and  character,  and,  above  all, 
have  never  questioned  their  good  faith.  But  we 
cannot  speak  thus  of  Bakunin.  In  all  the  changes 
and  chances  of  a  life  that  was  singularly  rich  in 
change,  there  were  far  too  many  dark  points,  to 
which  evil  report  had  ample  opportunity  to  attach 
itself.  We  do  not  see  in  Bakunin  that  proletarian 
in  wooden  sabots  and  blouse,  with  the  eager  thirst 
for  knowledge  and  keen  desire  to  raise  himself,  who 
dreams  as  he  works  before  the  compositor's  frame 
of  a  juster  order  of  things  in  this  world,  yet  more 
for  others  than  for  himself,  and  would  like  to  arrange 
society  itself  laboriously  in  a  well-ordered  composi- 


Russian  Influences  163 

tor's  case ;  nor  do  we  see  in  Bakunin  that  plain  Ger- 
man schoolmaster  who  would  people  society  with 
mere  sons  of  Prometheus,  while  he  himself  totters 
starving  to  the  grave ;  who  dedicates  his  gospel  of  a 
doctrine  that  would  overthrow  the  world  from  pole 
to  pole ' '  to  his  Darling,  Marie  Donhardt, ' '  as  though 
it  were  a  tender  love-song.  Bakunin  remains  to  us 
for  ever  as  the  commercial  traveller  of  eternal  revo- 
lution in  a  magnificent  pose,  and  from  the  red  cloak 
so  picturesquely  cast  around  him  peeps  out  un- 
pleasantly the  dagger  of  Caserio. 

We  cannot  leave  Bakunin  without  a  passing  men- 
tion of  his  favourite  pupil  Sergei  Netschajew,'  al- 
though he  was  still  less  of  a  pure  Anarchist  than 
Bakunin,  and  can  still  less  easily  be  separated  from 
Russian  Nihilism. 

But  a  picture  of  this  pair  of  twin  brothers  will 
show  us  better  than  long  essays  how  much  of  the 
total  phenomenon  of  modern  Anarchism  is  a  product 
of  Western  hyper-philosophy,  and  how  much  is  an 
inheritance  of  Russian  Nihilism.  Sergei  Netschajew, 
the  apostle  and  saint  of  Nihilist  poesy,  was  born  at 

'  For  Netschajew,  cf.  the  article  "Anarchism"  in  Wurm's  Volks- 
lexicon,  vol.  i.,  and  in  the  Handworterbuch  der  Siaaiswissettschaften, 
Jena,  1890,  vol.  i. ;  also  E.  von  Laveleye,  Socialism  of  the  Present 
(German  ed.  by  Ch.  Jasper,  Halle,  A.D.  S.,  1895).  All  these,  how- 
ever, are  based  almost  exclusively  on  the  information  in  the  memoir, 
L^ Alliance  de  la  Democratic  Socialiste  et  V Association  Internationale 
des  Travailleurs  :  Report  and  documents  published  by  order  of  the 
International  Congress  at  The  Hague  (London  and  Hamburg,  1873) 
— a  very  one-sided  party  brochure  of  the  Marxists  against  the  Bakun- 
inists,  which  has  been  proved  wrong  on  more  points  than  one.  We 
regret  all  the  more  that  we  are  limited  to  this  source  of  information. 


164  Anarchism 

St.  Petersburg  in  1846,  the  son  of  a  court  official, 
and  in  time  became  teacher  at  a  parish  school  in  his 
native  town.  In  1865  he  went  to  Moscow,  where 
he  became  associated  with  the  students  of  the  Acad- 
emy of  Agriculture,  and  founded  a  secret  society 
that  called  itself  "  The  People's  Tribunal,"  and 
formed  ostensibly  the  "  Russian  Branch  of  the 
International  Workers'  Union."  Both  in  St.  Peters- 
burg and  elsewhere  he  appeared  as  the  founder  of 
such  branch  societies,  attached  to  the  Bakuninist  sec- 
tion of  the  "  International,"  and  chiefly  recruited 
from  the  ranks  of  youthful  students.  In  a  pamphlet 
issued  later  (1869),  in  conjunction  with  his  master, 
Bakunin,  called  Words  Addressed  to  Students,  he 
exhorted  the  students  not  to  trouble  about  this 
"  empty  knowledge  "  in  whose  name  it  was  meant 
to  bind  their  hands,  but  to  leave  the  University  and 
go  among  the  people. '  The  Russian  people,  he  said, 
were  now  in  the  same  condition  as  in  the  time  of 
Alexis,  the  father  of  Peter  the  Great,  when  Stenka 
Razin,  a  robber  chieftain,  placed  himself  at  the  head 
of  a  terrible  insurrection.  The  young  people  who 
now  leave  their  place  in  society  and  lead  the  life  of 
the  people  would  form  an  invincible,  collective 
Stenka  Razin,  who  would  put  themselves  at  the 
head  of  the  fight  for  emancipation,  and  carry  it 
through  successfully.  For  this  purpose  they  should 
not  merely  turn  to  the  peasants  and  make  them  re- 
volt, but  also  call  in  the  help  of  robbers.  "  Rob- 
bery," he  said,  "  was  one  of  the  most  honourable 

*  The  expression  ' '  go  among  the  people "  has  since  become  a 
well-known  Nihilist  term. 


Russian  Influences  165 

forms  of  Russian  national  life."  The  robber  is  a 
hero,  the  protector  and  avenger  of  the  people,  the 
irreconcilable  enemy  of  the  State,  and  of  all  civic 
and  social  order  founded  by  the  State,  who  fights 
to  the  death  against  all  this  civilisation  of  officials, 
nobles,  priests,  and  the  crown.  The  Russian  robber 
is  the  true  and  only  revolutionary,  the  revolutionary 
sans  phrase,  without  rhetoric  derived  from  books, 
indefatigable,  irreconcilable,  and  in  action  irresisti- 
ble, a  social  revolutionary  of  the  people,  not  a  politi- 
cal revolutionary  of  the  classes. 

This  was  the  programme  of  the  society  called 
"  The  People's  Tribunal,"  as  it  was  that  of  Nihilism 
generally,  and,  transferred  from  this  into  Western 
conditions,  became  the  active  programme  of  the 
"propaganda  of  action."  At  the  same  time  as  the 
Words,  there  were  circulating  in  the  circles  influenced 
by  Netschajew  other  writings,  either  written  exclus- 
ively by  himself  or  in  conjunction  with  Bakunin, 
such  as  the  Formula  of  the  Revolutionary  Question, 
the  Principles  of  Revolution,  the  Publications  of  the 
the  People's  Tribunal, — all  of  which  preached  * '  total 
destruction  "  and  Anarchism.  The  opponents  of 
the  Bakuninists  maintain  that  the  only  purpose  of 
these  writings  was,  by  their  bloodthirsty  tone,  to 
compromise  genuine  revolutionaries,  and  give  the 
police  a  weapon  against  them.  But  the  whole  spirit 
of  Bakunin  is  expressed  in  the  revolutionary  Cate- 
chism,^ first  made  accessible  to  the  public  in  the  trial 

'  The  Catechism  is  reproduced  in  the  before-mentioned  memoir, 
L^ Alliance  de  la  D^mocratie  Socialiste,  viii.  {L' Alliance  en  Russie  et 
le  CaUchisme  Re'volutionnaire),  pp.  90-95. 


1 66  Anarchism 

of  Netschajew.  It  was  formerly  thought  that  Ba- 
kunin  was  the  author,  but  now  it  is  pretty  well 
agreed  that  it  was  Netschajew. 

The  catechism,  a  condensation  of  revolutionary 
fanaticism,  commands  the  revolutionary  to  break 
with  all  that  is  dear  to  him,  and,  troubling  nought 
about  law  or  morality,  family  or  State,  joy  or  sor- 
row, to  devote  himself  wholly  to  his  task  of  total 
bouleversement.  "If  he  continues  to  live  in  this 
world,  it  is  only  in  order  to  annihilate  it  all  the  more 
surely.  A  revolutionary  despises  everything  doc- 
trinaire, and  renounces  the  science  and  knowledge 
of  this  world  in  order  to  leave  it  to  future  genera- 
tions; he  knows  but  one  science:  that  of  destruc- 
tion. For  that,  and  that  only,  he  studies  mechanics, 
physics,  chemistry,  and  even  medicine.  For  the 
same  purpose  he  studies  day  and  night  living  science 
— men,  their  character,  positions,  and  all  the  con- 
ditions of  the  existing  social  order  in  all  imaginary 
spheres.  The  object  remains  always  the  same :  the 
quickest  and  most  effective  way  possible  of  destroy- 
ing the  existing  order  "  (§§  2,  3).  "  For  him  exists 
only  one  pleasure,  one  consolation,  one  reward,  one 
satisfaction,  the  reward  of  revolution.  Day  and 
night  he  must  have  but  one  thought — inexorable 
destruction  "  (§  6).  "  For  the  purpose  of  irrevoca- 
ble destruction  a  revolutionary  can,  and  may,  often 
live  in  the  midst  of  society  and  appear  to  have  the 
most  complete  indifference  as  to  his  surroundings. 
A  revolutionary  may  penetrate  everywhere,  into 
high  society,  among  the  nobility,  among  shop- 
keepers, into  the  military,  official,  or  literary  world, 


Russian  Influences  167 

into  the '  third  section  '  [the  secret  police],  and  even 
into  the  Imperial  palace  "  (§  14).  The  catechism 
divides  society  into  several  categories :  those  in  the 
first  of  these  categories  are  condemned  to  death 
without  delay.  "  In  the  first  place  we  must  put  out 
of  the  world  those  who  stand  most  in  the  way  of 
the  revolutionary  organisation  and  its  work  "  (§  i6). 
The  members  of  the  second  category  are  to  be  al- 
lowed to  live  "  provisionally,"  in  order  that,  "  by 
a  series  of  abominable  deeds  they  may  drive  the 
people  into  unceasing  revolt  "  (§  17)-  The  third 
class,  the  rich  and  influential,  must  be  exploited  for 
the  sake  of  the  revolution,  and  made  to  become 
"  our  slaves."  With  the  fourth  class.  Liberals  of 
various  shades  of  opinion,  arrangements  must  be 
made  on  the  basis  of  their  programme,  they  must 
be  initiated  and  compromised,  and  made  use  of  for 
the  perturbation  of  the  State.  The  fifth  class,  the 
doctrinaires,  must  be  urged  forward ;  while  the  sixth 
and  most  important  class  consists  of  the  women,  for 
making  use  of  whom  for  the  purposes  of  the  revo- 
lution Netschajew  gives  explicit  directions.  It  is 
the  tactics  of  the  Jesuits  in  all  their  details  that  are 
here  recommended  for  the  inauguration  of  the  most 
moral  ordering  of  the  universe.  The  last  section  of 
the  catechism,  which  treats  of  the  duty  of  the 
People's  Tribunal  Society  towards  the  people, 
reads:  "  The  Society  has  no  other  purpose  but  the 
complete  emancipation  and  happiness  of  the  people, 
i.  e.,  of  hardworking  humanity.  But  proceeding 
from  the  conviction  that  this  emancipation  and  this 
happiness  can  only  be  reached  by  means  of  an  all- 


1 68  Anarchism 

destroying  popular  revolution,  the  Society  will  use 
every  effort  and  every  means  to  heighten  and  in- 
crease the  evils  and  sorrows  which  at  length  will  wear 
out  the  patience  of  the  people  and  encourage  an  in- 
surrection en  masse.  By  a  popular  revolution  the 
Society  does  not  mean  a  movement  regulated  ac- 
cording to  the  classic  patterns  of  the  West,  which 
is  always  restrained  in  face  of  property  and  of  the 
traditional  social  order  of  so-called  civilisation  and 
morality,  and  which  has  hitherto  been  limited  merely 
to  exchanging  one  form  of  politics  for  another,  and 
at  most  to  founding  a  so-called  revolutionary  State. 
The  only  revolution  that  can  do  any  good  to  the 
people  is  that  which  utterly  annihilates  every  politi- 
cal idea.  With  this  end  in  view,  the  People's 
Tribunal  has  no  intention  of  imposing  on  the  people 
an  organisation  coming  from  above.  The  future 
organisation  will,  without  doubt,  proceed  from  the 
movement  and  life  of  the  people ;  but  that  is  the 
business  of  future  generations.  Our  task  is  terrible, 
inexorable,  and  universal  destruction." 

The  views  thus  expressed  are  quite  in  harmony 
with  what  Netschajew  has  written  about  revolu- 
tionary action  in  the  writings  mentioned  above. 
"  Words,"  he  exclaims,  "  have  no  value  for  us, 
unless  followed  at  once  by  action.  But  all  is  not 
action  that  is  so-called :  for  example,  the  modest 
and  too-cautious  organisation  of  secret  societies 
without  external  announcements  to  outsiders  is  in 
our  eyes  merely  ridiculous  and  intolerable  child's- 
play.  By  external  announcements  we  mean  a  series 
of    actions    that    positively   destroy    something — a 


Russian  Influences  169 

person,  a  cause,  a  condition  that  hinders  the  eman- 
cipation of  the  people.  Without  sparing  our  lives, 
we  must  break  into  the  life  of  the  people  with  a 
series  of  rash,  even  senseless,  actions,  and  inspire 
them  with  a  belief  in  their  powers,  awake  them, 
unite  them,  and  lead  them  on  to  the  triumph  of 
their  cause." 

The  tendency  which  here  develops  into  the  recom- 
mendation of  violence  should  be  carefully  noticed ; 
outrage  is  no  longer  recommended,  because  the  pur- 
poses of  revolution  can  be  served  thereby  directly, 
but  indirectly,  as  a  kind  of  sanguinary  advertisement 
to  the  indolent  masses,  who  would  thus  have  their 
attention  drawn  to  the  theory  by  such  terrible 
events.  That  is  the  diabolical  basis  of  the  "  pro- 
paganda of  action,"  which  was  defined  by  another 
follower  of  Bakunin — Paul  Brousse,  the  man  of  the 
Jura  Federation  (see  the  chapter  on  "  The  Spread 
of  Anarchy  ").  "  Deeds,"  says  Brousse,  "  are 
talked  of  on  all  sides ;  the  indifferent  masses  inquire 
about  their  origin,  and  thus  pay  attention  to  the 
new  doctrine,  and  discuss  it.  Let  men  once  get  as 
far  as  this,  and  it  is  not  hard  to  win  over  many  of 
them."  Therefore  he  recommended  revolution  and 
outrage,  not  in  order  to  upset  existing  society 
thereby,  but  for  the  purpose  of  the  "  propaganda." 
Brousse  only  had  to  borrow  the  thought,  as  we  see, 
from  Netschajew;  and  it  is  not  difficult  to  say 
whence  the  latter  got  it.  The  opinion  which 
ascribes  the  authorship  of  the  Catechism  of  Revolu- 
tion, and  of  the  other  writings  above  mentioned  not 
to  Netschajew  but  to  Bakunin  himself,  has  perhaps 


1 70  Anarchism 

some  foundation.  But  it  matters  little  who  is  the 
author  of  these  works.  Netschajew  is  thoroughly 
imbued  with  his  master's  spirit,  and  he  might  even 
say  to  him  (p.  115): 

" .     .     .     What  thou  hast  thought  in  thy  mind 
That  I  do,  that  I  perform. 

And  e'en  though  years  may  pass  away 

I  never  rest,  until  to  fact 
Is  changed  the  word  that  thou  did'st  say, 

'T  is  thine  to  think  and  mine  to  act. 

Thou  art  the  judge,  the  headsman  I ; 

And  as  a  servant  I  obey  ; 
The  sentence  which  thou  dost  imply, 

E'en  though  unjust,  I  never  stay. 

In  ancient  Rome,  a  lictor  dark 

An  axe  before  the  consul  bore  ; 
Thou  hast  a  lictor  too,  but  mark  ! 

The  axe  comes  after,  not  before. 

I  am  thy  lictor ;  and  alway 
With  bare,  bright  axe  behind  thee  tread  ; 

I  am  the  deed,  be  what  it  may. 

Begotten  from  thy  thought  unsaid." 

In  the  year  1869  a  sudden  end  was  put  to  Netscha- 
jew's  activity  in  Russia.  Among  his  most  trusted 
friends  in  Moscow  was  a  certain  Iwanow,  one  of  the 
most  respected  and  influential  members  of  the  secret 
society.  Iwanow  himself  lived  in  ascetic  seclusion, 
and  in  his  leisure  time  gave  the  peasants  instruction 
gratis,  establishing  classes  of  poor  students,  and  so 
forth.  He  was  a  fanatic  in  his  belief  in  the  social 
revolution.     He  had  also  established  cheap  eating- 


Russian  Influences  171 

houses  for  poor  students,  and  one  day  these  were 
closed  by  the  police,  and  their  founder  vanished, 
because  Netschajew  had  placarded  revolutionary 
appeals  in  them.  In  despair  at  this,  Iwanow  wished 
to  retire  from  the  secret  society.  Netschajew,  be- 
lieving that  he  might  betray  its  secrets,  enticed 
Iwanow  one  evening  into  a  remote  garden,  and  with 
the  help  of  two  fellow-conspirators,  Pryow  and 
Nicolajew,  shot  him,  and  threw  the  corpse  into  a 
pond.  He  then  fled,  and  arrived  safely  in  Switzer- 
land, where,  in  conjunction  with  Bakunin,  he  pro- 
duced the  literary  efforts  referred  to  above.  Soon, 
however,  he  quarrelled  with  Bakunin,  owing  to  cer- 
tain sharp  practices  of  which  he  was  guilty,  went  to 
London,  edited  a  paper  called  The  Commonwealth 
{Die  Giemeinde),  in  which  he  bitterly  attacked  his 
former  master,  and  at  last,  in  1872,  was  handed 
over  to  Russia  at  the  request  of  the  Russian  Gov- 
ernment. Since  then  nothing  more  was  heard  of 
him ;  Netschajew  disappeared,  like  the  demon  in  a 
pantomime,  "  down  below." 


,^^'0^ 


p¥^;j 


CHAPTER  V 


PETER   KROPOTKIN  AND   HIS   SCHOOL 

Biography — Kropotkin's  Main  Views — Anarchist  Communism  and 
the  "  Economics  of  the  Heap  "  {(as) — Kropotkin's  Relation  to  the 
Propaganda  of  Action — Elisee  Reclus  :  his  Character  and  Anar- 
chist Writings — Jean  Grave — Daniel  Saurin's  Order  through 
Anarchy — Louise  Michel  and  G.  Elievant — A.  Hamon  and  the 
Psychology  of  Anarchism — Charles  Malato  and  other  French 
Writers  on  Anarchist  Communism — The  Italians  :  Cafiero,  Mer- 
lino,  and  Malatesta. 

"  Seek  not  to  found  your  comfort  and  freedom  on  the  servitude  of 
another  ;  so  long  as  you  rule  others,  you  will  never  be  free  yourself. 
Increase  your  power  of  production  by  studying  nature ;  your  powers 
will  grow  a  thousandfold,  if  you  put  them  at  the  service  of  Human- 
ity. Free  the  individual  :  for  without  the  freedom  of  the  individual, 
it  is  impossible  for  society  to  become  free.  If  you  wish  to  emanci- 
pate yourselves,  set  not  your  hope  on  any  help  from  this  life  or  the 
next :  help  yourselves  !  Next  you  must  free  yourselves  from  all  your 
religious  and  political  prejudices.  Be  free  men  and  trust  the  nature 
of  a  free  man  :  all  his  faults  proceed  from  the  power  which  he  exer- 
cises over  his  own  kind  or  under  which  he  groans." — P.  Kropotkin. 


NE  more  Russian,  a  d^classS,  as  Baku- 
nin  was,  has  exercised  considerable 
influence  on  the  development  of 
modern  Anarchism;  and,  in  fact, 
although  he  has  introduced  but  few 
new  doctrines  into  it,  has  made,  in  the  truest  sense, 
a  school  of  his  own.     Kropotkin,  is  regarded  every- 

172 


;P'X.rV 

«^  ,tJ  ly.  ,Tj 

•    Jk&^ 

^  1 "  • 

»^ 

3r^Sk 

■®*''^ 

P^^   ' 

1     ^^a 

f^i^n  i 

'     ^K^^ 

^N^^^tf!     ' 

!^^^ 

^f^  ! 

W)    tV     Ai  1 

y.'  'x\,x'  -fl 

Peter  Kropotkin  and  his  School     173 

where  as  the  father  of  "  Anarchist  Communism," 
which  is,  to  some  extent,  directly  opposed  both  to 
the  collectivist  and  evolutionist  Anarchism  of  Proud- 
hon  and  to  the  other  philosophic  and  individual 
Anarchism  of  Stirner.  In  future  we  must  carefully 
discriminate  between  these  two  directions  of  in- 
dividual and  communal  Anarchism ;  moreover  they 
are  sharply  distinguished  not  only  in  their  intellect- 
ual but  also  their  actual  form.  The  former  tend- 
ency seems  more  adapted  to  the  Teutonic  races  in 
Germany,  England,  and  America,  whilst  the  An- 
archists of  the  Romance  nations,  but  especially  the 
French,  are  devoted  to  the  latter — the  communist 
doctrine  of  Kropotkin. 

Peter  Alexandriewitsch  Kropotkin  is  a  descendant 
of  the  royal  house  of  the  Ruriks,  and  it  used  to  be 
said  in  jest  in  the  revolutionary  circles  of  St.  Peters- 
burg that  he  had  more  right  to  the  Russian  throne 
than  the  Czar  Alexander  II.,  who  was  only  a  Ger- 
man. Born  at  Moscow  in  1842,  he  was  first  a  page 
at  court,  then  an  officer  in  the  Amur  Cossacks,  and 
next,  Chamberlain  to  the  Czarina.  In  this  atmo- 
sphere grew  up  the  man  who  is  now  developing  a 
perfectly  feverish  activity  not  only  in  the  realm  of 
intellect  and  science,  but  also  in  propaganda  of  the 
most  destructive  character.  Prince  Kropotkin 
studied  mathematics  in  his  youth  at  the  High 
School,  and  during  his  extensive  travels,  which  led 
him  to  Siberia  and  even  to  China,  acquired  a  great 
knowledge  of  geography.  The  dreaded  Anarchist 
is  and  has  always  been  active  as  a  writer  of  geo- 
graphical and  geological  works,  and  enjoys  a  con- 


1 74  Anarchism 

siderable  reputation  in  these  sciences,  apart  from 
his  activity  as  a  Socialist  teacher  and  agitator. 
During  a  journey  to  Switzerland  and  Belgium  in 
the  year  1872,  Prince  Kropotkin  became  more 
closely  connected  with  the  "  International,"  and 
especially  with  men  of  Bakunin's  school;  and  so 
shortly  as  a  year  later  we  find  him  in  his  native  land 
compromised  and  arrested  because  of  Nihilist  in- 
trigues. He  spent  three  years  as  a  prisoner  in  the 
fortress  of  SS.  Peter  and  Paul,  where,  however,  he 
was  allowed  to  pursue  his  scientific  studies.'  In  the 
year  1876  he  succeeded  in  escaping  from  there  and 
reaching  Switzerland.  Here  Kropotkin  devoted 
himself  to  a  feverish  activity  in  the  service  of  the 
new  doctrines  by  which  he  is  known.  In  Geneva 
he  immediately  joined  the  leaders  of  the  Anarchist 
agitation  known  as  the  "  Jurassic  Union  "  (see  the 
chapter  on  the  "  Spread  of  Anarchy  "),  founded 
the  paper  Revolt,  and  greatly  assisted  in  extending 
the  Union  so  widely  in  Switzerland  and  the  South 
of  France.  After  a  short  stay  in  England  we  find 
him  at  the  beginning  of  the  eighties  in  France,  busy 
here  and  there  with  the  founding  of  "  groups,"  de- 
livery of  lectures,  and  so  forth.  In  the  sensational 
Anarchist  trial  at  Lyons  in  1883  he  was  also  in- 
volved, and  was  condemned  to  five  years'  imprison- 
ment upon  his  own  confession  of  having  been  the 
"  intellectual  instigator "  of  the  bloody  demon- 
strations and  riots  at  Montceau-les-Mines  and  Lyons 
in  1882.  Kropotkin  was,  however,  set  free  after 
only  three  years'  imprisonment,  and  betook  himself 

'  See  his  life  in  Stepniak,  «,  j.,  pp.  90-101. 


Peter  Kropotkin  and  his  School     175 

to  London,  where  he  has  lived  till  recently.'  But 
the  more  watchful  supervision  of  Anarchists  that  has 
been  exercised  since  the  murder  of  President  Sadi 
Carnot,  appears  to  have  disgusted  him  with  Lon- 
don, for  his  present  place  of  abode  is  not  known. 

Kropotkin's  Anarchism  rests  upon  the  most  scien- 
tific and  humane  foundations,  and  yet  assumes  the 
most  unscientific  and  brutal  forms.  To  him  the 
Anarchist  theory  appears  to  be  nothing  but  a  neces- 
sary adaptation  of  social  science  to  that  modern 
tendency  in  all  other  sciences  which,  leaving  on  one 
side  abstract  and  collective  generality,  turn  to  the 
individual,  as,  e.g.,  the  cellular  theory,  the  study  of 
molecular  forces,  and  so  on.  Just  as  all  great  dis- 
coveries of  modern  science  have  proceeded  by  reject- 
ing the  unfruitful  deductive  method  and  beginning 
to  build  up  from  below,  so  also,  Kropotkin  main- 
tains, society  must  be  built  up  afresh  by  realising 
all  power,  all  reality,  all  purpose  in  individuals,  and 
can  only  arise  again  new-born  synthetically,  from 
the  free  grouping  of  these  individuals.  With  un- 
conscious self-irony,  Kropotkin  remarks  that  he 
would  like  to  call  this  system  the  "  synthetic,"  if 
Herbert  Spencer  had  not  already  applied  that  name 
"  to  another  system."  Anyone  who  would  con- 
clude from  this  that  the  learned  prince  would 
build  up  scientifically  a  well-founded  system,  as  his 
earlier  predecessors  tried  to  do,  would  be  mistaken. 
With  a  few  exceptions,  Kropotkin  has  only  pub- 
lished short  works,  though  certainly  numerous,  in 
which  he  uses  epithets  rather  than  arguments,  and 
'  He  was  living  in  Kent  in  1897. — Trans. 


1 76  Anarchism 

those  in  an  intentionally  trivial  tone;  indeed  he 
sometimes  mocks  at  the  "  wise  and  learned  theo- 
rists," and  regards  one  deed  as  worth  more  than  a 
thousand  books/  The  same  internal  contrast  is 
seen  in  him  in  another  direction.  He  is  apparently 
a  philanthropist  of  the  purest  water,  wishing  to  see 
the  foundation  of  an  universal  brotherhood  of  hu- 
manity, based  upon  what  he  regards  as  the  innate 
feeling  of  solidarity  in  man ;  we  seem  to  see  in  this 
Proudhon's  "justice,"  Comte's  "love,"  in  short, 
the  moral  order  of  the  world,  however  materialist 
Kropotkin  may  be  in  action,  and  however  much  he 
may  deny  all  moral  element  therein.  But  how  does 
he  mean  to  bring  about  this  moral  order  ?  By  any 
means  that  is  suitable,  even  by  the  sanguinary 
"  propaganda  of  action,"  and  finally  by  the  re- 
establishment  of  the  actual  conditions  of  the  prim- 
eval ape-man,  or  tribal  life  on  the  level  of  the 
inhabitants  of  Tierra  del  Fuego. 

'  The  chief  work  of  Kropotkin  is  La  Conquetedu  Fain,  Paris,  1892. 
(The  chapter  on  agriculture  was  printed  separately  as  a  pamphlet  in 
1892.)  We  quote  below  his  numerous  smaller  writings  in  the  editions 
which  we  possess,  without  vouching  for  the  chronological  order  or 
completeness  of  the  list.  Les  Paroles  d'un  Ji/volie\  1885  ;  Revolu- 
tionary Governments  (trans,  from  German  to  French,  Anarchist 
Library,  vol.  i.) ;  Un  Sikle  d'Attente,  1789-1889,  Paris,  1893  ;  La 
Grande  Revolution,  Paris,  1893  ;  Les  Temps  Nouveaux  (conference  at 
London),  Paris,  1894  ;  Jeunes  Gens,  4th  ed.,  Paris,  '93  ;  La  Loi  et 
I'Autorit/,  6th  ed.,  Paris,  '92  ;  Les  Prisons,  2d  ed.,  Paris,  '90  ; 
L' Anarchie  dans  revolution  Socialiste,  2d  ed.,  Paris,  '92  ;  Esprit  de 
Re'voUe,  Paris,  '92,  5th  ed.  ;  le  Salariat,  2d  ed.,  Paris,  '92  ;  La  Morale 
Anarchiste,  1890 ;  "Anarchist  Communion  :  its  Basis  and  Principles" 
(republished  by  permission  of  the  editor  of  the  Nineteenth  Century), 
London,  1887. 


Peter  Kropotkin  and  his  School     177 

For  Kropotkin  Anarchy  consists  in  (i)  the  libera- 
tion of  the  producer  from  the  yoke  of  capital,  in 
production  in  common,  and  the  free  enjoyment  of 
all  products  of  common  work;  (2)  in  freedom  from 
any  yoke  of  government,  in  the  free  development 
of  individuals  in  groups,  of  groups  in  federations,  in 
free  organisation  rising  from  the  simple  to  the  com- 
plex according  to  men's  needs  and  mutual  endeav- 
ours ;  and  (3)  in  liberation  from  religious  morahty, 
and  a  free  morality  without  duty  or  sanctions  pro- 
ceeding and  becoming  customary  from  the  life  of 
the  community  itself.' 

The  postulate  of  the  abolition  of  the  authority 
of  the  State  is  the  well-known,  old  stock  proposal 
of  the  Anarchists.  But  it  is  noticeable  that  Kro- 
potkin attacks  the  State  among  other  things,  be- 
cause it  does  not  carry  out  the  maxim  of  laisser 
faire  so  often  imposed  upon  it  by  another  party. 
Kropotkin  thinks  that  the  State  acts  rather  on  the 
principle  of  not  laisser  faire,  and  is  always  inter- 
vening in  favour  of  the  exploiter  as  against  the 
exploited  {Les  Temps  Noiiveaux,  p.  46).  The  State 
is  accordingly  a  purely  civic  idea  {I'idde  bourgeoise), 
utterly  rotten  and  decaying,  only  held  together 
by  the  plague  of  laws.  All  law  and  dominion, 
including  parliamentary  government,  must  there- 
fore be  put  aside,  and  be  replaced  by  the  "  sys- 
tem of  no  government  "  and  free  arrangement  {la 
libre  entente^.  Kropotkin  sees  everywhere  already, 
even  at  present  in  public,  and  especially  in  economic 
life,  germs  of  this  free  understanding  or  entente,  in 

^  L'Anarchie,  p.  26. 


1 78  Anarchism 

which  government  never  intervenes;  what,  for  ex- 
ample, in  isolated  cases  two  railway  companies  do  in 
making  a  free  arrangement  about  fares  and  time- 
tables, is  to  be  the  universal  form  of  society. 

In  this  society  the  feeling  of  solidarity  alone, 
which  Kropotkin  assumes  as  a  sort  of  a  priori  axiom 
of  society,  will  determine  men's  actions:  "  Each 
must  retain  the  right  of  acting  as  he  thinks  best, 
and  the  right,  of  society  to  punish  any  one  for  a 
social  action  in  any  way  must  be  denied.  .  .  ." 
"  We  are  not  afraid  of  doing  without  judges  and 
their  verdicts,"  says  he,  in  La  Morale  Anarchiste. 
'*  With  Guyon  we  renounce  each  and  every  approval 
of  morality  or  any  duties  to  morality.  We  do  not 
shrink  from  saying :  Do  what  pleases  you !  Act  as 
you  think  fit !  for  we  are  convinced  that  the  great 
majority  of  mankind,  in  proportion  to  their  enlight- 
enment and  to  the  completeness  with  which  they 
throw  off  their  present  fetters,  will  always  act  in  a 
manner  beneficial  to  society — just  as  we  are  certain 
that  some  day  or  other  a  child  will  walk  upon  its 
two  feet  and  not  on  all  fours,  because  it  is  born  of 
parents  that  belong  to  the  genus  homo,''  But  the 
comparison  is  incorrect.  There  are,  as  a  matter  of 
fact,  degenerate  children  of  human  kind  who,  de- 
prived of  all  understanding,  creep  on  all  fours  quite 
unconcernedly.  Equally  insufficient  is  another 
proof  adduced  by  Kropotkin,  who  is  a  great  friend 
of  animals,  from  the  animal  world.  Looking  around 
among  animals,  he  finds  in  them  also  an  innate  feel- 
ing of  sympathy  with  their  own  species,  expressed 
in   mutual   assistance  in  time  of  need   or   danger. 


Peter  Kropotkin  and  his  School     179 

By  this  he  wishes  to  prove  that  men  likewise  would 
act  in  the  same  way  to  their  fellow-men  merely 
from  the  feeling  of  solidarity,  and  without  laws  or 
government.  Elsewhere  certainly,  in  a  later  work, 
he  has  to  confess  that  there  are  among  men  an 
enormous  number  of  individuals  who  do  not  under- 
stand that  the  welfare  of  the  individual  is  identical 
with  that  of  the  race.  But  supposing  that  man  were 
exactly  like  the  animals,  then — speaking  in  Kropot- 
kin's  manner — he  would  stand  no  higher  in  morality 
than  they.  But  then  do  we  really  find  that,  in  the 
animal  world,  the  number  of  cases  in  which  they  act 
from  a  feeling  of  solidarity  is  greater  than  those  in 
which  they  simply  make  use  of  brute  force  or  blind 
want  of  forethought,  and  have  animals  the  sense  to 
do  away  with  organised  solidarity,  the  State,  in 
order  to  replace  it  by  something  unorganised  and 
consequently  less  valuable  ? 

But  Prince  Kropotkin,  who  appears  to  be  such  a 
stern  materialist,  is  a  very  enthusiast,  who  gives  way 
to  utter  self-deception  as  to  human  nature.  "  We 
do  not  want  to  be  governed!  "  he  says;  "  and  do 
we  not  thereby  declare  that  we  ourselves  wish  to 
rule  no  one  ?  We  do  not  wish  to  be  deceived ;  we 
always  would  hear  nothing  but  the  truth.  Do  we 
not  declare  by  this  that  we  ourselves  wish  to  deceive 
no  one,  and  that  we  promise  to  speak  always  the 
truth,  the  whole  truth,  and  nothing  but  the  truth  ? " 
Who  can  fail  to  recognise  here  the  exact  opposite 
to  the  real  facts  of  the  case  ?  The  Anarchists,  and 
especially  those  who  acknowledge  Kropotkin  as  their 
highest "  authority,"  do  not  wish  force  used  against 


i8o  Anarchism 

them,  yet  use  it  themselves ;  they  do  not  wish  to  be 
killed,  and  yet  kill  others.  Can  there  be  a  stronger 
refutation  of  Anarchist  morality  ? 

Kropotkin  has  finally  broken  with  the  Communism 
of  Proudhon,  and  placed  Anarchist  Communism  in 
its  stead.  Proudhon,  and,  to  a  certain  extent,  Ba- 
kunin  also — who  always  called  himself  a  CoUectivist, 
and  repelled  the  charge  of  Communism  ' — certainly 
attacked  property  as  rente  or  profit  derived  from  the 
appropriation  of  the  forces  of  nature ;  but  they  have 
also  not  only  not  denied  the  right  to  individual  pos- 
session of  property,  but  even  sought  to  make  it 
general.  Everyone  should  become  a  possessor  of 
property ;  only  land  and  the  means  of.  labour,  which 
must  be  accessible  to  all,  may  not  be  appropriated ; 
they  are   collective   property,  and   are   applied   to 

'  At  the  Peace  Congress  at  Bern  in  1869,  Bakunin  defended  him- 
self against  the  reproach  of  Communist  tendencies,  saying :  "I 
abominate  Communism,  because  it  is  a  denial  of  freedom,  and  I  can- 
not understand  anything  human  without  freedom.  I  am  no  Com- 
munist, because  Communism  concentrates  all  the  forces  of  society  in 
the  State,  and  lets  them  be  absorbed  by  it,  because  it  necessarily 
results  in  the  centralisation  of  property  in  the  hands  of  the  State  ; 
whereas  I  wish  to  do  away  with  the  State,  to  utterly  root  out  the 
principle  of  the  authority  and  guardianship  of  the  State,  which,  under 
the  pretence  of  improving  and  idealising  men,  has  hitherto  enslaved, 
oppressed,  exploited,  and  ruined  them.  I  wish  for  the  organisation 
of  society  and  of  collective  and  social  property  from  below  upwards, 
by  means  of  free  association,  and  not  from  above  downwards  by 
means  of  authority,  be  it  what  it  may.  In  demanding  the  abolition 
of  the  State,  I  mean  to  abolish  the  inheritance  of  property  by  an  in- 
dividual, i.  e.,  of  property  that  is  only  a  matter  of  the  State's  arrange- 
ment, and  is  only  a  consequence  of  the  principle  of  the  State  itself. 
In  this  sense  I  am  a  CoUectivist  and  by  no  means  a  Communist." 


Peter  Kropotkin  and  his  School     i8i 

employment  in  a  proportion  equal  to  the  quotient 
of  the  amount  of  land  at  disposal,  or  the  means  of 
production  on  the  one  hand  and  the  number  of 
members  of  free  "  groups  "  on  the  other.  We  have 
already  seen  to  what  a  complicated  organisation  of 
economic  life  this  led  in  the  case  of  Proudhon's 
theory ;  but  he  did  not  entrust  the  maintenance  of 
this  economic  order  to  the  strong  hand  of  the  State, 
but  believed  that  life,  when  once  brought  into  equi- 
librium or  "  balance,"  could  never  fall  away  from 
it  again.  We  will  not  repeat  here  what  an  illusion 
is  contained  in  this.  Collectivism  left  to  itself  must 
degenerate  again  at  once  into  a  state  of  economic 
inequality,  and  accordingly  those  CoUectivists  who 
make  the  maintenance  of  economic  equilibrium  the 
business  of  the  State,  possess  at  least  the  merit  of 
consistency.  But  then  the  very  foundation  idea  of 
Anarchism  is  hereby  lost. 

This  irreconcilable  contradiction  between  Anarch- 
ism and  Collectivism  decided  Kropotkin  to  give  up 
the  latter  entirely,  and  to  set  up  in  its  stead  An- 
archist Communism,  thus  attaching  himself  to  the 
lines  already  indicated  by  Hess  and  Griin.  He  criti- 
cised unsparingly  (in  La  Conquite  du  Pain  and  Le 
Salariat)  every  system  of  reward  or  wages,  whether 
based  on  Saint-Simon's  principle  of  "  To  each  ac- 
cording to  his  capacity,  and  to  every  capacity 
according  to  its  results";  or  on  Proudhon's  rule, 
"  to  each  according  to  his  powers,  to  each  according 
to  his  needs."  With  the  reward  of  labour  he  re- 
jects the  period  of  labour,  possession  even  in  the 
form  of  Collective  possession,  and  also  the  payment 


I  §2  Anarchism 

of  labour  {les  hons  du  travail),  equally  with  other 
forms  of  property,  capital,  or  exploitation.  He  even 
attacks  the  theory  of  the  full  result  of  labour  that 
ought  to  accrue  to  every  labourer,  this  most  stalwart 
hobby-horse  of  Socialism.  "  It  would  mean  the 
annihilation  of  the  race,"  he  says,  "  if  the  mother 
would  not  sacrifice  her  life  to  save  the  life  of  her 
children ;  if  man  would  not  give  where  he  could  ex- 
pect no  recompense." 

Kropotkin's  motto,  that  has  been  so  eagerly  ac- 
cepted by  the  Anarchists  of  Romance  nationality, 
is  on  the  contrary:  "Everything  belongs  to  all," 
tout  est  h  tons ;  i.  e.,  no  one  is  any  longer  a  posses- 
sor; if  after  the  Revolution  all  goods  and  property 
were  expropriated  and  given  back  to  the  community, 
then  everybody  would  take  what  he  pleased,  accord- 
ing to  his  needs.  Anyone  might  just  as  well  appro- 
priate the  land  as  another  object  or  commodity. 
"  Heap  together  all  the  means  of  life,  and  let  them 
be  divided  according  to  each  man's  need,"  he 
cries  * ;  "let  each  choose  freely  from  this  heap 
everything  of  which  there  is  a  superfluity,  and  let 
only  those  commodities  be  divided  of  which  there 
might  be  some  lack.  That  is  a  solution  of  the  prob- 
lem according  to  the  wish  of  the  people."  Again, 
"  free  choice  from  the  heap  in  all  means  of  life  that 
are  abundant,  proper  division  {rationement)  of  all 
those  things  the  production  of  which  is  limited; 
division  according  to  needs,  with  special  regard  to 
children,  old  people,  and  the  weak  generally.  The 
enjoyment  of  all  this  not  in  a  social  feeding-institu- 

'  In  Anarchy,  p.  13. 


Peter  Kropotkin  and  his  School     183 

tion  {dans  la  marmite  sociale),  but  at  home  in  the 
family  circle  with  our  friends,  according  to  the  taste 
of  the  individual,  that  is  the  ideal  of  the  masses, 
whose  mouthpiece  we  are." 

It  is  interesting  to  see  how  all  attempts  to  do 
away  with  individual  property  come  back  again  at 
once  in  thought  to  that  same  property,  and  in  op- 
position Proudhon  might  on  this  basis  write  a  very 
pretty  retort  to  What  is  Property?  Kropotkin 
wishes  first  of  all  a  general  expropriation,  and  then 
each  person  is  to  have  what  he  likes.  But  what  is 
the  use  of  an  expropriation,  which  only  means  one 
thing,  if  a  division  to  all  is  to  follow  it  ?  Would  it 
not  be  simpler  as  the  inauguration  of  Anarchist 
Communism,  to  do  away  with  the  guarantee  of  prop- 
erty at  once,  and  then  to  watch  quietly  and  see  how 
individuals  deprived  each  other  of  their  possessions  ? 
The  result  would  be  just  the  same,  but  there  is  a 
well-understood  contradiction  in  first  declaring  all 
property  as  a  common  possession — in  which  the 
reality  of  society  which  Kropotkin  denies  is  thereby 
recognised — and  then  giving  to  each  person  the 
right  to  dispose  as  he  pleases  of  everything.  Stirner 
was  at  least  logical  when  he  declared  :  * '  All  belongs 
to  me!  "  As  a  matter  of  fact  the  statements,  "  All 
belongs  to  me,"  "  All  belongs  to  all,"  "  Nothing 
belongs  to  me,"  and  "  Nothing  belongs  to  all, "are 
perfectly  identical.  The  difference  between  all  these 
conceptions  of  property  according  to  the  principles 
of  individualist  or  Communist  Anarchism,  and  the 
relations  of  property  as  they  exist  to-day,  merely  re- 
duces itself  to  this,  that  with  us  the  State  affordg 


184  Anarchism 

the  guarantee  of  property,  while  Anarchy,  at  most, 
places  the  guarantee  of  it  in  free  association  or 
agreement,  proceeding  from  a  ' '  group  "  or  a  "  union 
of  egotists."  Here  we  come  face  to  face  with  the 
purely  formal  question  of  whether  right  is  derived 
from  convention  or  compulsion ;  but  as  regards  in- 
dividual property  as  such  no  alteration  is  thereby 
made. 

But  Kropotkin's  "  economics  of  the  heap  "  {la 
mise  au  tas,  la  prise  au  tas)  has  another  fault  besides 
this  matter  of  logic.  Its  talented  inventor  proceeds 
from  two  assumptions,  which  characterise  him  as  a 
Utopian  of  the  first  water;  on  the  one  hand  the  old 
and  incorrect  assumption  of  the  inexhaustible  pro- 
ductivity of  the  earth,  and  on  the  other  the  assump- 
tion of  the  innate  solidarity  of  mankind. 

Kropotkin  maintains  that  production  now  already 
outweighs  consumption,  and  that  the  former  is  grow- 
ing with  unsuspected  rapidity  together  with  scientific 
insight  into  the  methods  of  production  and  with  free- 
dom of  production.  A  piece  of  land  which  to-day  is 
cultivated  by  ten  persons,  and  feeds  one  hundred, 
would  with  rational  cultivation  feed  one  thousand 
people,  and  with  the  general  employment  of  ma- 
chinery would  only  require  five  persons  to  cultivate 
it.  In  fact,  diminution  of  labour,  with  increase  of 
production  under  rational  cultivation,  is  perhaps  the 
quintessence  of  Kropotkin's  argument.  Men  will 
then  quickly  leave  the  less  productive  countries  to 
settle  in  the  most  suitable  and  most  productive  dis- 
tricts, and  from  these  they  will  extract  with  propor- 
tionately little  labour  a  never-ending  superfluity,  so 


Peter  Kropotkin  and  his  School     185 

that  the  economic  arrangement  proposed  by  Kro- 
potkin will  become  not  only  possible,  but  there  will 
even  be  too  much  to  distribute.  Here  again  we 
have  the  Land  of  Idleness  in  the  disguise  of  science, 
the  millennium  of  the  revolution.  Let  us  listen  to 
the  description  of  this  return  to  Paradise  in  Kropot- 
kin's  own  words: 

"  The  workers  will  [after  the  Revolution]  go  away 
from  the  city  and  return  to  the  country.  With  the 
help  of  machinery  which  will  enable  the  weakest 
among  us  to  support  it,  they  will  introduce  the 
revolution  into  the  methods  of  cultivation,  as  they 
had  previously  with  the  ideas  and  conditions,  of 
those  who  were  before  but  slaves.  Here  hundreds 
of  acres  will  be  covered  with  glass  houses,  and  men 
and  women  will  tend  with  gentle  hands  the  young 
plants.  Elsewhere  hundreds  of  acres  will  be 
cleared  and  broken  up  by  machinery  worked  by 
steam,  improved  by  manures  and  enriched  by  phos- 
phates. Laughing  troops  of  workers  will  in  due 
time  cover  these  fields  with  seeds,  guided  in  their 
work  and  in  their  experiments  by  those  who  under- 
stand agriculture,  but  all  of  them  continually  ani- 
mated by  the  powerful  and  practical  spirit  of  a 
people  that  has  waked  up  from  a  long  sleep  and  sees 
before  it  the  happiness  of  all,  that  light-house  of 
humanity  shedding  its  rays  afar.  And  in  two  or 
three  months  an  early  harvest  will  relieve  their  most 
pressing  needs,  and  provide  with  food  a  people  who 
after  centuries  of  silent  hope  will  at  last  be  able  to 
satisfy  its  hunger  or  eat  as  its  appetite  desires. 
Meanwhile   the    popular  genius,    the   genius  of  a 


1 86  Anarchism 

people  that  is  rising  and  knows  its  own  require- 
ments, will  seek  new  means  of  production  which 
only  need  the  test  of  experiment  in  order  to  come 
into  general  use.  Attempts  will  be  made  to  con- 
centrate light,  that  well-known  factor  in  agriculture, 
which  in  the  latitude  of  Yakutsk  ripens  barley  in 
forty-five  days,  and  to  produce  it  artificially,  and 
with  light  rival  heat  in  promoting  the  growth  of 
plants.  Some  genius  of  the  future  will  invent  an 
instrument  to  guide  the  rays  of  the  sun,  and  compel 
them  to  do  work  without  it  being  necessary  to  seek 
in  the  depths  of  the  earth  for  the  heat  contained  in 
coal.  Efforts  will  be  made  to  water  the  ground 
with  solutions  of  minute  organisms — an  idea  of 
yesterday  that  will  make  it  possible  to  introduce 
into  the  ground  the  little  living  cells  that  are  neces- 
sary for  plants  in  order  to  feed  the  young  roots,  and 
to  decompose  the  component  parts  of  the  earth,  and 
make  them  fit  to  be  assimilated."  Kropotkin  adds, 
rendering  criticism  unnecessary:  "We  shall  make 
experiments,  but  we  need  go  no  farther,  for  we 
should  enter  upon  the  realms  of  romance." 

We  need  not  now  consider  whether  the  statement 
that  production  is  already  surpassing  the  capacity 
of  consumption  is  really  quite  true ;  the  vast  ma- 
jority of  economists  is  of  a  different  opinion.  But 
even  if  it  were  so,  and  if  production  should  further 
increase,  Kropotkin  himself  admits  that  the  neces- 
sary presupposition  of  abundant  production  is 
rational  cultivation.  But  the  first  condition  of  such 
rational  agriculture  is  fixed  organisation.  This  con- 
dition   is    to-day    fulfilled  ;     but    in    Kropotkin's 


Peter  Kropotkln  and  his  School     187 

scheme  there  would  only  be  cultivation  by  robbery, 
and  that  invariably  leads  at  last  to  want,  and  a  lack 
of  production.  Kropotkin  has  seen  this  himself,  for 
otherwise  his  proposal  to  distribute  those  products, 
the  growth  of  which  is  limited,  and  of  which  there 
might  be  a  lack,  would  be  most  superfluous ;  for  in 
the  land  of  lotus-eaters  there  is  no  want. 

This  admission  that  such  a  case  might  happen  is, 
however,  not  only  a  relapse  from  the  promised  land 
of  the  future  into  the  sober  reality  of  to-day,  but 
it  is  the  negation  of  Anarchy.  Where  is  the  line  to 
be  drawn  between  the  superfluous  and  the  non- 
superfluous  ?  Who  is  to  draw  it,  and  still  more, 
who  would  recognise  it  ?  Who  will  undertake  the 
distribution,  and  who  will  respect  it  ?  Every  form  of 
authority  is  abolished,  and  no  one  is  pledged  to  any- 
thing. What  if  I  simply  refuse  to  recognise  the 
limits  made  by  the  Commission  of  Distribution  or  to 
obey  their  decisions  ?  Will  anyone  compel  me  ? 
In  that  case  Anarchy  would  be  a  fraud ;  but  if  I  am 
allowed  to  do  as  I  like,  distribution  is  impossible  and 
Communism  a  fraud. 

From  this  dilemma  Kropotkin  has  endeavoured 
to  extricate  himself,  in  the  fashion  of  certain  cele- 
brated examples,  by  invoking  a  deus  ex  machina. 
Comte  called  it  love,  Proudhon  justice,  and  Kropot- 
kin calls  it  "  the  solidarity  of  the  human  race," — 
three  different  words,  but  they  imply  one  and  the 
same  thing:  the  moral  order  of  the  universe — a 
dogma  which  anyone  may  believe  or  not,  as  he 
likes.  Kropotkin  assures  us  that,  when  once  the 
great  revolution  has  taken  place,  human  solidarity 


r88  Anarchism 

will  arise  like  a  phoenix  from  the  smoking  ashes  of 
the  old  order.  We  do  not  consider  ourselves  better 
or  worse  than  other  men,  but  we  doubt  very  seri- 
ously whether  we  ourselves,  if  confronted  on  the 
one  hand  by  want,  and  on  the  other  by  Kropotkin's 
famous  "  heap  of  commodities,"  would  give  up  the 
chief  necessaries  of  life  (and  it  is  these  in  which 
want  must  first  be  felt,  just  because  they  are  the 
most  necessary)  merely  out  of  a  feeling  of  solidarity 
with  a  man  who  next  moment,  if  he  is  stronger  than 
I,  might  turn  me  out  of  my  house,  kill  me,  or  part 
with  my  books  or  pictures  as  if  they  were  his  own, 
with  impunity.  This  sort  of  Communism  would 
only  be  possible  under  the  rule  of  a  despotic  au- 
thority, such  as  the  social-democratic  State  of  the 
future  must  inevitably  possess ;  but  it  would  never 
be  possible  for  a  libre  entente  of  perfectly  free  indi- 
viduals; "  free"  men  in  the  Anarchist  sense  will 
never  let  themselves  be  made  equal  and  never  have 
done  so. 

But  Kropotkin  thinks  otherwise.  He  goes  back 
to  those  dear,  good,  and  too  happy  savages  of  Rous- 
seau, and  tells  us '  that  primitive  peoples,  so  long  as 
they  submit  to  no  authority  but  live  in  Anarchy, 
lead  a  most  enviably  happy  life.  "  Apart  from  the 
occurrences  of  natural  forces,  such  as  sudden  changes 
of  weather,  earthquakes,  frost,  etc. ,  and  apart  from 
war  and  accidents,  primitive  races  lead  a  rich  and 
full  life  out  of  their  own  resources,  following  their 
own  wishes,  at  the  cost  of  the  minimum  of  labour. 
Read  the  descriptions  left  by  the  great  voyagers  of 

'  Les  Temps  Nouveaux,  p.  2i, 


Peter  Kropotkin  and  his  School     189 

early  centuries,  read  certain  modern  records  of 
travel,  and  you  will  see  that  where  society  has  not 
yet  sunk  under  the  yoke  of  priests  and  warriors, 
plenty  prevails  among  savages.  Like  gregarious 
birds  they  spend  the  morning  in  common  labour; 
in  the  evening  they  rest  in  common  and  enjoy  them- 
selves. They  have  none  of  the  troubles  of  life 
known  to  the  proletariat  in  the  great  centres  of  in- 
dustry of  our  time.  Misery  only  overtakes  them 
when  they  fall  under  the  yoke  of  some  form  of 
authority." 

Here  we  have  the  golden  age  existing  before  any 
form  of  society,  just  as  previously  we  heard  the 
description  of  a  golden  age  after  the  fall  of  forms  of 
society,  and  that  the  misery  of  this  "  cursed  civilisa- 
tion "  can  only  be  removed  by  doing  away  with 
such  a  society  and  returning  again  to  the  same 
primitive  condition.  It  is  the  same  old  tale  of  the 
"  social-contract  "  theory  to  which  our  Anarchists 
one  and  all  invariably  recur  after  manifold  scientific 
toil  and  trouble.  In  fact  this  primitive  paradise 
described  by  Kropotkin  is  just  as  much  a  figment  of 
his  imagination  as  the  Anarchist  paradise  of  the 
future.  He  speaks  of  early  travellers.  Now,  as 
regards  the  ethnographic  observations  of  old  travel- 
lers, they  are  a  very  doubtful  source  of  information. 
Formerly  it  was  frequently  declared  off-hand  that 
this  or  that  people  had  no  idea  of  religion  or  lived 
in  Anarchy.  The  reason  was  that  travellers  com- 
pletely underrated  primitive  forms  in  comparison 
with  their  own  preconceived  religious  or  political 
ideas  and  regarded  them  as  naught.      Exact  ob- 


190  Anarchism 

servations  have  shown  that  a  complete  lack  of  all 
religious  conceptions  is  as  rare  in  primitive  races  as 
complete  lack  of  all  social  organisation  or  form  of 
authority.  Kropotkin  unfortunately  does  not  men- 
tion the  ' '  certain  new  travellers  ' '  in  whose  books 
he  has  read  those  descriptions  of  the  happy  state  of 
primitive  peoples  produced  by  Anarchy.  As  far  as 
we  know,  Anarchy  in  the  proper  sense  can  only  be 
stated  of  a  very  small  number  of  races  like  the 
Tierra  del  Fuegans,  the  Eskimos,  etc. ;  but  the  life 
of  these  people  is,  to  their  disadvantage,  exceed- 
ingly different  from  the  fancied  paradise  of  Kropot- 
kin. If  we  read  the  unanimous  descriptions  given 
by  Fitzroy,  Darwin,  Topinard,  and  others  about  the 
inhabitants  of  Tierra  del  Fuego,  we  shall  very 
quickly  abjure  our  belief — if  we  ever  held  it — that 
they  lead  such  an  Eden-like  existence  as  Kropot- 
kin's  Anarchist  savages.  We  find,  rather,  misery 
and  hunger  as  permanent  conditions,  that  appear 
here  as  consequences  of  Anarchy,  and  the  blame 
cannot  be  laid  entirely  upon  the  lack  of  fertility  of 
the  soil.  Narborough '  says  of  the  Tierra  del 
Fuegans:  "  If  any  desire  for  civihsation  arose,  the 
forests  that  cover  the  country  would  not  be  an  ob- 
stacle thereto,  for  in  many  parts  there  appear  open, 
grassy  spots,  which  are  frequently  regarded  by  sea- 
men as  the  remnants  of  attempts  at  agriculture  by 
the  Spaniards. "  But  in  general  the  statements  of 
all  travellers  and  ethnographers  agree  in  showing 
that  the  existence  of  these  so-called  "  savages"  is 

'  Quoted  in  Ratzel's  F.  Volkerkunde,  vol.  ii,,  p.  668.     Leipsic  and 
Vienna,  1890. 


Peter  Kropotkin  and  his  School     191 

a  continual  and  bitter  struggle  against  nature  and 
against  each  other  for  the  barest  necessaries  of  life, 
and  that  if  hunger  is  not  a  constant  guest,  their 
mode  of  living  is  a  very  irregular  alternation  be- 
tween surfeit  and  prolonged  fast.  How  difficult  it 
is  to  rear  children  among  these  primitive  people  and 
even  among  others  more  advanced  in  civilisation  is 
proved  by  the  terrible  custom,  common  to  all  parts 
of  the  globe,  of  infanticide,  which  has  no  other  ob- 
ject than  artificial  selection  for  breeding  in  view  of 
the  harsh  conditions  of  existence.  Persons  who  are 
regarded  by  the  community  only  as  mouths  to  feed 
and  not  as  actual  workers,  the  old  and  weak,  are 
simply  killed  off  by  many  races — even  by  those  who, 
in  other  respects,  do  not  stand  upon  a  low  level; 
and  the  murder  of  the  parents  and  the  aged  appears 
to  be  as  widespread  among  primitive  races  as  infant- 
icide. But  these  are  facts  which  not  only  contra- 
dict the  Anarchist  assumption  of  a  golden  age  of 
Anarchy,  but  still  more  contradict  that  of  an  innate 
feeling  of  solidarity  in  the  human  race. 

A  further  remark  remains  to  be  made  as  to  Kro- 
potkin's  attitude  toward  the  "  propaganda  of 
action."  It  is  often  said  that  he  rejects  it.  But 
that  is  quite  contrary  to  the  facts.  In  his  Psycho- 
logy of  Revolution  {U Esprit  de  Revolt e,  p.  7)  he  takes 
up  quite  a  decisive  attitude  in  reply  to  the  question 
how  words  must  be  translated  into  deeds:  "  The 
answer  is  easy,"  says  he;  "  it  is  action,  the  con- 
tinual, incessantly  renewed  action  of  the  minority 
that  will  produce  this  transformation.  Courage, 
devotion,  self-sacrifice,  are  as  contagious  as  coward- 


192  Anarchism 

ice,  subjection,  and  terror.  What  forms  is  action 
to  take  ?  Any  form — as  different  as  are  circum- 
stances, means,  and  temperaments.  Sometimes 
arousing  sorrow,  sometimes  scorn,  but  always  bold ; 
sometimes  isolated,  sometimes  in  common,  it  de- 
spises no  means  ready  to  hand,  it  neglects  no  op- 
portunity of  public  life  to  propagate  discontent, 
and  to  clothe  it  in  words,  to  arouse  hatred  against 
the  exploiter,  to  make  the  ruling  powers  ridiculous, 
to  show  their  weakness,  and  ever  to  excite  audacity, 
the  spirit  of  revolt,  by  the  preaching  of  example. 
If  a  feeling  of  revolution  awakes  in  a  country,  and 
the  spirit  of  open  revolt  is  already  sufficiently  alive 
among  the  masses  to  break  out  in  tumultuous  dis- 
orders in  the  streets,  imeiites  and  risings, — then  it  is 
*  action  '  alone  by  which  the  minority  can  create 
this  feeling  of  independence  and  that  atmosphere  of 
audacity  without  which  no  revolution  can  be  com- 
pleted. Men  of  courage  who  do  not  stop  at  words 
but  seek  to  transform  them  into  deeds,  pure  charac- 
ters for  whom  the  action  and  the  idea  are  insepara- 
ble, who  prefer  prison,  exile,  or  death,  rather  than 
a  life  not  in  accordance  with  their  principles,  fear- 
less men,  who  know  what  must  be  risked  in  order 
to  win  success, — those  are  the  devoted  outposts  who 
begin  the  battle  long  before  the  masses  are  suffi- 
ciently moved  to  unfurl  the  standard  of  insurrection, 
and  to  march  sword  in  hand  to  the  conquest  of  their 
rights.  Amid  complaints,  speeches,  theoretical  dis- 
cussions, an  act  of  personal  or  general  revolt  takes 
place.  It  cannot  be  otherwise  than  that  the  great 
mass  at  first  remains  indifferent;    those  especially 


Peter  Kropotkin  and  his  School     193 

who  admire  the  courage  of  the  person  or  group  that 
took  the  initiative  will  apparently  follow  the  wise 
and  prudent  in  hastening  to  describe  this  act  as  folly, 
and  in  speaking  of  the  fools  and  hot-headed  people 
who  compromise  everything.  These  wise  and  pru- 
dent ones  had  fully  calculated  that  their  party,  if  it 
slowly  pursued  its  objects,  would  perhaps  have  con- 
quered the  world  in  one,  two,  or  three  centuries, 
and  now  the  unforeseen  intrudes!  The  unforeseen 
is  that  which  was  not  foreseen  by  the  wise  and  pru- 
dent. But  those  who  know  history  and  can  lay 
claim  to  any  well-ordered  reasoning  power,  however 
small,  know  quite  well  that  a  theoretical  propaganda 
of  revolution  must  necessarily  be  translated  into 
action  long  before  theorists  have  decided  that  the 
time  for  it  has  come.  None  the  less  the  theorists 
are  enraged  with  the  *  fools  '  and  excommunicate 
and  ban  them.  But  the  fools  find  sympathy,  the 
mass  of  the  people  secretly  applaud  their  boldness, 
and  they  find  imitators.  In  proportion  as  the  first 
of  them  fill  the  prisons,  others  come  forward  to  con- 
tinue their  work.  The  acts  of  illegal  protest,  of 
revolt,  of  revenge,  increase.  Indifference  becomes 
impossible.  Those  who  at  first  only  asked  what  on 
earth  the  fools  meant,  are  compelled  to  take  them 
seriously,  to  discuss  their  ideas,  and  to  take  sides 
for  or  against.  By  acts  which  are  done  under  the 
notice  of  the  people,  the  new  idea  communicates 
itself  to  men's  minds  and  finds  adherents.  One 
such  act  makes  in  a  few  days  more  proselytes  than 
thousands  of  books." 

This  is  precisely  the  view  of  the  followers  of  Bak- 

»3 


194  Anarchism 

unin,  only  obscured  and  founded  on  a  psychological 
basis. 

Kropotkin  forms  the  centre  of  a  large  number  of 
Anarchist  authors,  who  are  working  at  the  develop- 
ment or  the  popularising  of  Anarchist  theory  on  the 
same  lines  as  he  is  doing.  From  the  mass  of  unim- 
portant writers  two  rise  up  prominently,  both  essen- 
tially differing  one  from  the  other,  Elis6e  Reclus, 
the  savant,  and  Jean  Grave,  editor  of  the  Rifvolte . 

Jean  Jacques  Elis^e  Reclus '  was  born  on  March 
15,  1830,  at  Ste.  Foy  la  Grande,  in  the  Gironde,  the 
son  of  a  Protestant  minister.  He  was  the  eldest  but 
one  of  twelve  children,  and  early  became  acquainted 
with  want  and  distress,  a  circumstance  which,  in 
conjunction  with  his  warm  and  affectionate  heart, 
sufficiently  explains  his  later  social  views.  Edu- 
cated in  Rhenish  Prussia,  he  attended  the  Protestant 
Faculty  at  Montauban,  in  Southern  France,  and 
then  the  University  of  Berlin,  where  he  studied 
geography  under  Ritter.  At  present  Reclus  is  re- 
garded as  one  of  the  best  geographers,  and  is  the 
author  of  the  famous  and  much  admired  Nouvelle 
G^ograpliie  Universelle,  in  nineteen  volumes,  and  of 
the  great  popular  physical  geography  La  Terre, 
which  has  also  been  translated  into  German.  His 
student  life  and  also  his  stay  at  Berlin  coincided 
with  the  stormy  period  of  the  Revolution  of  1848, 
and    Reclus    eagerly   accepted    the   views    of    the 

'  Cf.  Wolkenhauer,  Elisie  Reclus  {Globus,  vol.  Ixv.,  No.  8,  Feb., 
1894).  Reclus's  Anarchist  writings  are  :  Produit de  la  Terre et  de  V In- 
dustrie, 1885  ;  Richesse  et  Misere ;  Evolution  et  Revolution,  6th  ed., 
Paris,  1891  ;  and  A  man  Frire  le  Paysan,  Geneva,  1894. 


Peter  Kropotkin  and  his  School     195 

political  and  social  Radicalism  of  that  day.  The 
coup  d'etat  of  December  2,  185 1,  compelled  him 
to  leave  France;  he  fled  to  England,  visited  Ireland, 
and  then  from  1852  to  1857  travelled  in  the  United 
States,  North  America,  Central  America,  and  Co- 
lombia. Returning  to  Paris,  he  devoted  himself  to 
a  scientific  arrangement  of  his  studies  during  his 
travels,  but  at  the  same  time  took  a  more  and  more 
active  part  in  the  social  and  political  movements  of 
the  day.  Thus  he  was  one  of  the  first  authors  in 
France  who  eagerly  supported  the  war  of  the  North- 
ern States  of  America  for  freedom,  and  defended 
Lincoln.  When  the  American  Minister  in  Paris 
wished  to  express  his  recognition  to  the  savant, 
then  living  in  extremely  modest  circumstances,  by 
the  present  of  a  considerable  sum  of  money,  Reclus 
angrily  rejected  it.  During  the  siege  of  Paris  in 
1870,  Elis^e  Reclus  joined  the  National  Guard,  and 
was  one  of  the  crew  of  the  balloon  under  Nadar  who 
endeavoured  to  convey  news  outside  Paris.  As  a 
member  of  the  International  Association  of  Work- 
men, he  published  in  the  Cri  du  Peuple,  at  the  time 
of  the  outbreak  of  the  i8th  March,  1871,  a  hostile 
manifesto  against  the  Government  at  Versailles. 
Still  belonging  to  the  National  Guard,  which  had 
now  risen,  he  took  part  in  a  reconnaissance  on  the 
plateau  of  Chatillon,  in  which  he  was  taken  prisoner 
on  the  5th  of  April.  After  seven  months'  imprison- 
ment in  Brest,  during  which  he  taught  his  fellow- 
prisoners  mathematics,  the  court-martial  in  St.  Ger- 
main condemned  him,  on  i6th  November,  1871,  to 
be  transported.     This  sentence  caused  a  great  outcry 


196  Anarchism 

in  scientific  circles,  and  from  different  quarters,  es- 
pecially from  eminent  English  statesmen  and  men 
of  letters,  among  them  being  Darwin,  Wallace,  and 
Lord  Amberley,  the  President  of  the  French  Re- 
public was  urged  to  mitigate  his  punishment. 
Accordingly,  Thiers  commuted  the  sentence  of 
transportation  on  4th  January,  1872,  to  one  of 
simple  banishment.  Reclus  then  proceeded  to 
Lugano,  but  soon  afterwards  lost  his  young  wife 
there,  whom  he  loved  passionately,  and  who  had 
followed  him  into  banishment.  Later  on  he  went 
to  Switzerland,  where  he  settled  at  Clarens,  near 
Montreux,  on  the  Lake  of  Geneva,  and  devoted 
himself  again  to  Communist  and  geographical 
studies.  In  1879,  Reclus  returned  to  Paris,  was  ap- 
pointed in  1892  Professor  of  Geography  at  Brussels, 
but  in  1893  was  again  deprived  of  his  post  on  ac- 
count of  Anarchist  outrages,  in  which  he  was  quite 
unjustly  supposed  to  be  implicated.  The  students 
thereupon  left  the  university,  and  founded  a  free 
university,  in  which  Reclus  is  at  present  a  pro- 
fessor. 

Elis^e  Reclus's  Anarchism  is  explained  externally 
not  only  by  his  intimate  friendship  with  Kropotkin, 
but  still  more  from  his  connexion  with  an  "  Anarch- 
ist family,"  for  his  brother,  the  eminent  anthropo- 
logist Eli6,  and  several  of  his  nephews  as  well  as 
their  wives  are  devoted  adherents  of  Anarchism. 
But  while  the  younger  members  of  the  Reclus  family 
are  more  closely  connected  with  the  "  propaganda 
of  action  "  (the  engineer  Paul  Reclus  was  accused  of 
being  an  accomplice  of  Vaillant),  the  older  members, 


Peter  Kropotkin  and  his  School     197 

especially  Elis^e,  are  learned  dreamers  who  have 
nothing  in  common  with  the  folly  of  the  dynamitard. 
"  The  idea  of  Anarchism  is  beautiful,  is  great," 
says  Elis^e,  "  but  these  miscreants  sully  our  teach- 
ing: he  who  calls  himself  an  Anarchist  should  be 
one  of  a  good  and  gentle  sort.  It  is  a  mistake  to 
believe  that  the  Anarchist  idea  can  be  promoted  by 
acts  of  barbarity."  And  in  the  preface  to  the  last 
volume  of  his  Universal  Geography  he  says  of  his 
travels:  "  I  have  everywhere  found  myself  at  home, 
in  my  own  country,  among  men,  my  brothers.  I 
have  never  allowed  myself  to  be  carried  away  by 
sentiment,  except  that  of  sympathy  and  respect  for 
all  the  inhabitants  of  the  one  great  Fatherland.  On 
this  round  earth  that  revolves  so  rapidly  in  space,  a 
grain  of  sand  amid  infinity,  is  it  worth  while  for  us 
to  hate  one  another  ?  " 

Reclus  has  no  special  doctrine,  but  shares  gener- 
ally the  views  of  his  friend  Kropotkin,  although  his 
greater  scientific  insight  on  many  points  leads  him 
to  incline  rather  to  the  Collectivism  of  Proudhon 
and  Bakunin.  The  "  economy  of  the  heap  "  {tas) 
appears  to  Reclus,  at  any  rate  in  the  province  of 
agriculture,  to  be  unworkable.  He  prefers  a  distri- 
bution of  land  among  individuals,  family  groups, 
and  communities,  according  to  the  proposition  of 
individual  and  collective  power  of  labour.  "  The 
moment  a  piece  of  landed  property  surpasses  the 
limits  which  can  be  properly  cultivated,  the  holder 
should  have  no  right  to  claim  the  surplus  for  him- 
self; it  will  fall  to  the  share  of  another  worker." 
The  Russian  mir  is  always  before  his  thoughts  as 


iqB  Anarchism 

the  patron  of  peasant  organisation.  Nothing  is 
more  remarkable  than  the  affection  of  the  Anarchist 
followers  of  Proudhon  and  Bakunin  for  the  Russian 
mir  system.  It  would  be  a  meritorious  piece  of 
sociological  work  to  show  the  fundamental  errors 
which  underlie  the  agricultural  systems  that  have 
been  tried  and  have  failed  in  modern  attempts  to 
revive  them.  The  endeavour  to  revive  them  is  now 
so  general  that  it  is  no  longer  to  be  wondered  at 
that  we  see  those  who  are  apparently  most  extreme, 
and  even  Anarchists,  following  the  same  reactionary 
stream  as  the  Socialist  Catholics  and  their  followers. 
The  folly  of  their  proceedings  is  best  seen  in  those 
people  who  angrily  reject  a  revival  of  the  guilds, 
but  by  no  means  object  to  the  revival  of  the  old 
village  communism,  which  implies  a  far  earlier  stage 
of  development.  We  are,  however,  digressing,  but 
must  add  one  further  remark.  The  Anarchists  are 
accustomed  to  say  that  their  free  economic  organis- 
ation will  quite  absorb  and  devour  politics,  author- 
ity, and  government,  so  that  nothing  of  them 
remains;  while,  on  the  other  hand,  they  represent 
the  mir  as  the  pattern  of  such  an  organisation.  But 
how  comes  it  that,  in  the  very  country  where  the 
mir,  this  "  just  "  village  communism,  exists,  in 
Russia  itself,  on  the  one  hand  famine  is  never  ab- 
sent,* and  on  the  other  the  Czar's  bureaucracy  and 

'  This  is  seen,  inter  alia,  by  the  number  of  persons  wandering 
about  seeking  food — "  a  vagabond  proletariat."  In  1886  no  less  than 
4,951,000  were  wandering  more  than  thirty  versts  from  their  dwell- 
ings. Even  the  women  have  to  leave  the  villages  to  seek  support 
elsewhere,  and  the  number  of  women  and  children  who  thus  are  com- 
pelled to  seek  work  at  a  distance  is  increasing  every  year.     Thus, 


Peter  Kropotkin  and  his  School     199 

Cossack  tyranny  flourish  so  exceedingly,  and  that 
the  peasant  population  itself  is  the  most  powerful 
support  of  the  arbitrary  rule  of  their '  *  Little  Father, " 
the  Czar  ? 

It  might  seem  surprising  that  a  savant  of  Reclus's 
calibre  does  not  himself  perceive  a  refutation  that  is 
so  obvious.  But  Reclus  is  a  type :  who  does  not 
know  the  figure — even  here  not  seldom  seen — of  the 
earnest  savant,  full  of  the  purest  love  and  devotion 
for  mankind,  who  dabbles  in  politics  in  his  leisure 
hours  ?  It  is  as  if  in  this  time  of  leisure  his  spirit 
seeks  to  free  itself  from  the  severe  discipline  of  his 
professional  life.  The  man  who,  in  his  capacity  as 
a  doctor,  a  geographer,  or  physicist,  would  never 
allow  subjective  influences  to  trouble  his  method, 
deals  with  politics  quite  apart,  as  if  there  were  not 
also  a  science  of  politics  that,  like  any  other  science, 
regards  freedom  from  the  subjective  standpoint,  or 
from  love  and  hatred  as  the  first  condition  of  the 
validity  of  its  propositions.  Reclus,  the  celebrated 
geographer,  goes  so  far,  as  a  politician,  as  to  deny 
the  value  of  political  economy  and  to  assert  that 
every  workman  knows  more,  and  is  better  acquainted 
with  social  laws,  than  the  learned  economist. 

On  the  other  hand,  it  is  just  this  circumstance 
that  gives  this  aged  savant  an  importance  in  Anarch- 
ist theory,  to  which  the  originality  and  the  teach- 

e.g.y  in  the  district  of  the  Government  of  Wjatka,  in  1874,  2.68  per 
cent.  ;  in  1883,  6.46  per  cent. ;  in  1885,  7.22  per  cent,  of  the  women 
capable  of  work  did  this.  Often  whole  families  wander  about,  and 
women  with  children  at  the  breast  are  no  uncommon  sight  among  the 
troops  of  wandering  workmen.  (Westlaiider,  A.,  Russland  vor 
tinem  Regime-  IVecAsel,  Stuttgart,  1894,  p.  28.) 


200  Anarchism 

ing  of  his  Anarchist  writings  could  give  him  no  claim. 
The  pamphlet  Evolution  and  Revolution  is  nothing 
but  a  rechauffe  of  the  well-known  commonplaces  of 
Anarchism ;  but  the  noble  personality  of  Reclus  that 
stands  out  before  us  at  every  sentence,  the  honour- 
able intention,  the  high  moral  desire,  the  inspired 
hope  which  make  even  the  errors  of  opponents  so 
touching,  give  the  little  book  the  same  importance 
for  his  followers  as  the  Contrat  Social  once  pos- 
sessed, and  makes  his  decoction  the  quintessence  of 
Anarchist  thought,  in  its  noblest,  purest,  and  also — 
as  a  consequence — its  most  nebulous  form. 

A  man  of  quite  a  different  stamp  is  Jean  Grave, 
the  soul  of  the  chief  Anarchist  organ,  the  Parisian 
Rivolte,  which  originated  from  the  earlier  paper,  the 
R^volte  of  Kropotkin,  which  appeared  previously  in 
Geneva,  and  was  suppressed  there  in  1885.  Among 
the  multitude  of  d^class^s  who  gave  up  their  millions, 
their  rank,  and  their  estates  in  order  to  preach  An- 
archy, Grave  has  been,  since  Proudhon,  the  only 
member  of  the  proletariat  who  has  made  any  im- 
portant contributions  to  the  theoretical  edifice  of  the 
new  doctrine.  He  was  first  a  cobbler  and  then  a 
printer,  before  becoming  editor  of  the  Parisian 
weekly  journal. 

Grave  is  the  Netschajew  of  Kropotkin.  In  the 
year  1883  he  published,  under  the  name  of  Jehan 
Levagre,  a  production  entitled  Publication  du  Groupe 
de  se  et  ^.je  A  rrondissements,  wherein  he  maintained 
the  thesis  that  public  propaganda  must  serve  the 
secret  "  propaganda  of  action  "  as  a  means  of  de- 


Peter  Kropotkin  and  his  School     201 

fence ;  it  must  offer  it  the  means  of  action,  namely, 
men,  money,  and  influence  ;  and  especially  must 
contribute  to  place  these  actions  in  the  right  light 
by  commenting  upon  them.  That  is  also  the 
method  in  which  Grave  edits  the  R^volte.  He  is 
every  inch  the  man  of  action,  both  in  his  journal 
and  in  his  other  writings,  most  of  all  in  his  book  La 
Social ^ Mour ante  et  l' A narc/tie  {printed  in  London; 
the  original  edition  is  suppressed  in  France),  which 
in  1894  brought  upon  its  author  a  sentence  of  two 
years'  imprisonment  on  account  of  its  provocative 
tone.  On  the  other  hand,  in  his  latest  work.  La 
Soct'/U  au  Lendemain  de  la  Revolution  (3d  ed.,  Paris, 
1893),  Grave  endeavours  not  only  to  write  as  a 
theorist,  but  has  even  sketched  a  definite  picture  of 
the  Anarchist  paradise.  Adorned  with  the  exterior 
drapery  of  the  modern  doctrine  of  descent  and  by 
the  influence  of  H.  Spencer,  who  has  been  totally 
misunderstood  by  Grave  as  by  all  other  Anarchists, 
the  teaching  of  Kropotkin  here  meets  us  without 
essential  addition,  but  clear  and  precise.  Grave  only 
admits  an  organisation  in  the  society  of  the  future 
in  the  sense  of  a  friendly  agreement,  formed  by  the 
identity  of  interests  among  individuals  who  group 
themselves  together  for  the  common  execution  of 
some  task.  These  societies,  which  are  formed  and 
dissolved  again  merely  according  to  the  needs  of  the 
moment,  are  the  alpha  and  omega  of  social  organisa- 
tion. From  the  group  will  proceed  the  production 
of  shoes  and  the  construction  of  further  railways; 
there  may  be  co-operation  of  groups,  but  no  central- 
isation in  the  shape  of  commissions,  delegations,  or 


202  Anarchism 

similar  "  parasitic  "  institutions.  The  ticklish  ques- 
tion of  the  position  of  children  under  Anarchy  is 
solved  (with  the  resolute  optimism  peculiar  to  Grave) 
by  a  libre  entente.  Naturally  there  can  be  no  right 
to  any  child,  since  there  will  be  at  most  merely  a 
"  family  group,"  and  not  a  family.  Those  who 
wish  to  nurse  and  look  after  their  children  can,  of 
course,  do  so ;  and  those  who  do  not  wish  to,  can 
probably  find  some  enthusiast  who  will  with  pleasure 
relieve  them  of  the  burden  of  humanity  to  which 
they  have  certainly  given  life,  but  which  concerns 
them  no  more  from  the  moment  when  the  umbilical 
cord  between  mother  and  child  is  severed.  Of 
course  there  can  be  no  talk  of  education  under  An- 
archy, because  education  and  discipline  presuppose 
authority ;  and  therefore  education  will  be  a  matter 
of  "  individual  initiative."  On  the  other  hand, 
education  will  flourish  luxuriantly  because  every 
one  will  perceive  its  value ;  and  so  on. 

The  internal  contradiction  of  Anarchism  is  no- 
where so  clearly  seen  as  when  it  is  a  question  of 
children,  who  form  the  most  important  group  of 
"  the  weak."  We  have  already  touched  upon  this 
in  connection  with  Stirner's  union  of  egoists.  But 
the  more  one  attempts  to  understand  this  state  of 
society  in  detail,  the  more  violent  becomes  the  con- 
tradiction between  its  supposed  purpose  and  its 
actual  consequences.  For  what  purpose  are  we  to 
overthrow  the  present  order  of  society,  and  make 
any  other  form  of  society  resting  upon  authority 
impossible  ?  Is  it  in  order  to  make  the  oppression 
of  the  weak  by  the  strong,  of  minorities  by  majori- 


Peter  Kropotkin  and  his  School     203 

ties,  of  one  man  by  another,  impossible ;  to  give  each 
individual  his  full  "  integral  "  freedom  ?  And  what, 
as  a  matter  of  fact,  would  be  the  consequences  of 
Anarchy  ?  Imagine  wanton,  idle  mothers,  without 
conscience  and  seeking  only  enjoyment — and  Grave 
admits  that  such  exist  to-day,  and  that  in  a  future 
society  they  cannot  be  compelled  to  support  their 
children, — imagine  that  such  persons  are  set  free 
from  the  duty  of  caring  for  their  own  offspring,  of 
suckling  and  attending  to  them,  and  that  it  is  to  be 
left  to  mere  chance  and  the  "  enthusiasm  "  of 
others,  whether  a  child  gets  milk,  or  even  is  fed  and 
cared  for.  How  many  children  would  perish  ?  How 
many  "  weaker  ones  "  would  fall  victims  to  the 
brutality  of  the  stronger  in  the  valuation  of  their 
individuality  ?  We  cannot  be  deceived  with  the 
"  innate  harmony  or  solidarity,  justice  or  love  of 
mankind,"  or  whatever  other  name  may  be  given 
to  this  figment  of  the  imagination;  still  less  with 
the  Land  of  Indolence,  overflowing  with  plenty, 
promised  by  Kropotkin  and  his  followers.  Both  of 
these  suppositions  must  first  of  all  be  proved  actu- 
ally to  exist ;  at  present  they  are  only  maintained 
obstinately  because,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  they  cannot 
be  proved. 

Nature  and  life  speak  another  language,  perhaps 
more  sorrowful  and  more  convincing.  The  appeals 
to  Darwin  and  Biichner  are,  in  the  language  of  Dar- 
winism, the  society  of  to-day,  and  any  other  form 
of  society  based  upon  the  principle  of  the  State  im- 
plies a  softening  of  the  struggle  for  existence  by 
artificial  selection;  but  Anarchy  would  be  natural 


204  Anarchism 

selection,  and  thus  would  be  a  step  lower  in  de- 
velopment. The  return  to  primitive  stages,  which 
have  long  since  been  passed  through,  would  be  the 
external  form  in  which  this  fact  would  appear ;  thus, 
for  example,  the  conditions  described  by  Grave  in 
"  the  sexual  group  "  would  mean  a  return  to  the 
times  and  conditions  which,  in  all  races  of  a  primi- 
tive type  living  in  total  or  partial  Anarchy,  have  led 
to  the  dreadful  custom  of  murdering  children  and 
old  people.  But  this  would  mean  a  return  to  arti- 
ficial selection  in  its  most  primitive  and  sanguinary 
form.  Anarchists  want  us  to  undergo  once  again  all 
the  errors,  terrors,  and  madness  associated  with  the 
results  won  by  human  culture;  and  that  there  will 
not  be  even  a  respectable  minority  prepared  to  do. 
But  they  wish  to  do  it  in  order  to  introduce  "  hap- 
piness for  all  "  {le  honheur  de  r kuinattit^),  to  change 
the  "  struggle  for  existence  "  into  a  general  "  strug- 
gle with  nature,"  as  all  Anarchists  from  Proudhon 
to  Grave  have  dreamed ;  and  in  this  lies  the  incom- 
prehensible and  ineffable  contradiction. 

More  original  than  Reclus  and  Grave,  if  only  after 
the  fashion  of  the  eclectic  who  can  quicken  the 
various  ancient  and  modern  elements  of  thought 
into  a  new  spirit,  is  Daniel  Saurin,  who,  in  his  work 
on  Order  through  Anarchy  {L  Ordre par  F Anarchic, 
Paris,  1893),  tries  to  find  a  philosophic  foundation 
for  Anarchism.  For  Saurin,  humanity  is  something 
substantial  and  real,  not  that  tohuzvabohn  from  which 
even  Reclus  cannot  rescue  Kropotkin's  "  economics 
of  the  heap. "     According  to  Saurin  the  normal  man 


Peter  Kropotkin  and  his  School     205 

combines  two  elements :  a  constant  something  that 
is  permanent  throughout  the  centuries,  and,  surpass- 
ing space  and  time,  comes  back  again  in  all  nations 
and  persons;  and  a  variable.  The  first  is  "  man," 
the  latter  the  individual.  The  human  average  {Je 
minimum  humain)  appears  in  the  bodily,  moral,  and 
mental  equality  of  men  ;  the  individual  is  determined 
by  the  relation  of  these  constants  to  an  environment 
{milieu).  Above  the  individual  stands  Man,  and 
Man  includes  all  individuals  in  himself.  The  laws 
of  each  individual  are  thus  the  laws  of  humanity; 
the  law  of  society  resides  in  ourselves ;  to  recognise 
the  essential  conditions  of  our  being  is  to  recognise 
the  essential  form  of  society ;  to  realise  them,  to  be 
what  man  is,  is  to  respect  the  reality  of  others,  is  to 
be  "  sociable."  The  most  perfect  form  of  society, 
therefore,  is  found  in  the  fullest  freedom  of  the  ego ; 
for  this  no  human  laws  are  needed.  "  To  what 
purpose  is  it  to  re-enact  natural  laws  and  to  wish  to 
confirm  their  powerful  commands  by  the  ridiculous 
sanctions  of  men  ?  Our  obedience  to  them  can  add 
nothing  to  them ;  without  our  knowing  or  wishing 
it,  we  must  obey  them.  Anarchy  is  thus  not  lack 
of  order  but  the  most  natural  order.  .  .  .  From 
the  real  society  which  binds  us  individuals  together 
springs  the  universal  law,  the  irrevocable  moral 
order,  to  which  each  existence  is  bound  and  which 
it  follows,  without  thereby  belying  the  principle  of 
Anarchy;  for  Anarchy  cannot  possibly  be  a  mere 
unconditioned  loosing  of  all  bonds,  the  unreal  ab- 
solute. .  .  .  Man  is  higher  than  the  individ- 
ual ;  at  least  he  stands  before  the  individual,  and  in 


2o6  Anarchism 

him  is  the  passing  of  phenomena.  Thus,  also, 
morals  must  come  before  sociology,  and  form  the 
foundation  of  a  society  which  seeks  to  be  per- 
manent." 

Here,  post  tot  discrimina  rerum,  we  have  again 
the  moral  order  of  the  universe,  to  which  we  may 
apply  the  words  of  a  celebrated  Englishman,  who 
said  of  certain  moralists:  "  It  would  be  thought 
absurd  to  say  the  planets  must  move  in  circles  be- 
cause the  circle  is  the  most  perfect  figure,  and  yet 
the  dogmas  of  certain  politicians  are  just  as  absurd 
as  this  assertion." 

As  the  caricature  of  the  social  revolutionist  in 
petticoats,  Louise  Michel '  has,  perhaps  wrongly, 
obtained  a  kind  of  celebrity  as  a  type.  Her  me- 
moirs show  her,  as  Zetkin  proves,  as  a  noble,  self- 
sacrificing,  unselfish,  and  mild  character.  "  Like 
all  sharply-defined  characters,  Louise  Michel  suffers 
from  the  defects  of  her  qualities.  She  is  courage- 
ous to  the  point  of  aimless  recklessness,  so  full  of 
character  that  she  might  be  termed  obstinate ;  sym- 
pathetic and  soft-hearted  to  the  verge  of  senti- 
mentality. Her  idealism  often  loses  itself  in  the 
misty  regions  of  indistinctness,  and  borders  on  mys- 
ticism; her  kindness  degenerates  into  weakness, 
her  trustfulness  into  credulity.  But  all  these  faults 
cannot  weaken  the  general  impression  of  this  pure 
and  noble  character;  on  the  contrary,  they  are  the 

*  Her  books,  Le  Livre  de  Mislres  and  Prise  de  Possession,  were  not 
procurable  by  me,  and  I  had  to  depend  upon  Ossip  Zetkin's  sketch  of 
her  in  Charakterkoffen  aus  der  franzosischen  Arbeiter/wegung,  pp. 
40-48,  Berlin,  1893,  and  the  Volkslexikon,  I.  c. 


Peter  Kropotkin  and  his  School     207 

shadows  which  show  up  the  lights  more  clearly  and 
distinctly.  Her  Anarchism,  Socialism,  or  whatever 
else  it  may  be  called,  has  nothing  in  common  with 
modern  scientific  Socialism,  except  its  unsparing 
criticism  of  the  modern  form  of  society  and  its  per- 
sistent attempt  to  transform  it  and  to  produce  a 
state  of  things  more  suitable  to  modern  conditions. 
But  her  criticism  finds  support  in  quite  different 
arguments;  an  idealist  lack  of  clearness  enfolds 
the  end  to  be  attained,  and  still  more  the  means 
to  it.  She  knows  historical  facts  well  enough,  but 
lacks  insight  into  the  historical  process  of  develop- 
ment; and  still  less  does  she  possess  a  clear  com- 
prehension of  economic  relationships.  To  her  a 
social  transformation  is  not  the  natural  and  neces- 
sary product  of  historical  and  economic  development, 
but  the  demand  made  by  a  passionate  feeling  of 
justice,  a  categorical  imperative.  If  Louise  Michel 
had  lived  in  the  middle  ages,  she  would,  without 
doubt,  have  been  the  foundress  of  a  new  religious 
order;  as  a  child  of  the  nineteenth  century,  as  an 
atheist,  who  cannot  postpone  the  redress  of  in- 
justice into  another  life,  she  became  a  social  revolu- 
tionary." 

Her  career  shows  the  unselfishness  and  self-sacri- 
fice with  which  Louise  Michel  carried  out  her  ideas. 
She  was  born  in  1836  at  the  French  castle  of  Bron- 
court;  she  calls  herself  "  a  bastard";  her  mother 
was  a  simple  peasant  girl,  an  orphan  without  either 
brothers  or  sisters,  brought  up  in  the  castle,  and 
seduced  by  the  son  of  its  owner.  The  young  man's 
parents  decided  that  Louise  and  her  mother  should 


2o8  Anarchism 

remain  in  the  castle,  as  an  act  of  justice,  not  of 
kindness.  After  the  death  of  her  grandparents 
Louise  left  the  castle  with  her  mother  in  1850, 
passed  her  examination  as  a  teacher,  and,  as  she 
would  not  take  the  oath  necessary  for  holding  office 
in  Napoleonic  France,  she  opened  a  "  free  school," 
/".  e.,  a  private  school  in  a  little  village.  In  1856  she 
came  to  Paris  as  assistant  teacher  in  another  private 
school,  lived  in  extreme  poverty,  took  a  most  active 
part  in  the  struggles  of  the  Commune  in  May,  1871, 
was  taken  prisoner  and  was  to  have  been  shot,  but 
was  condemned  in  December,  1871,  to  be  trans- 
ported to  New  Caledonia,  whence  she  returned  in 
1880,  in  consequence  of  the  general  amnesty  then 
given.  She  took  part  in  editing  Anarchist  journals, 
and  was  condemned  in  1886  to  five  years'  imprison- 
ment "  for  incitement  to  plunder."  After  three 
years  she  was  pardoned  by  the  President,  but  "  she 
regarded  this  as  a  disgraceful  insult,"  against  which 
she  protested  violently,  and  absolutely  refused  to 
accept  it,  so  that  she  had  to  be  turned  out  of  prison 
by  force.  Since  then  she  has  lived  in  London, 
where  she  acts  as  head  of  the  "  R^veil  International 
des  Feimnes,^^  an  organisation  possessing  a  journal 
and  preaching  an  exceedingly  confused  and  old- 
maidish  form  of  female  emancipation. 


Around  these  figures  of  modern  French  Anarch- 
ism are  grouped  a  number  of  theorists  of  inferior 
rank,  partly  belonging  to  the  literary  aftergrowth 
and  Bohemia,  partly  learned  persons,  contributors 


Peter  Kropotkin  and  his  School     209 

to  the  RivoM,  the  Pire  Peinard,  the  Revue  Anar- 
chiste,  the  U en  Dehors ,  and  other  Anarchist  prints 
in  Paris,'  mostly  of  a  very  ephemeral  character. 

Thus  we  have  G.  Eli^vant,  who  wrote  a  declara- 
tion of  Anarchist  principles  {Declarations,  Paris, 
1893),  in  consequence  of  a  charge  made  against  him 
in  1893  in  connection  with  the  dynamite  robbery  at 
Soisy-sous-Etiolles,  a  book  regarded  by  the  An- 
archists as  one  of  the  standard  works  of  their  liter- 
ature. A.  Hamon,  a  learned  sociologist,  has  written 
a  pamphlet,  Les  Hommes  et  les  Theories  de  I ' Anarchie 
(Paris,  1893),  which  has  enjoyed  a  wide  circulation; 
and  is  preparing  a  large  Psychology  of  Anarchists,  of 
which  he  has  already  published  a  short  summary 
(see  Dubois,  u.  s.,  pp.  207-243).  Hamon,  in  order 
to  gain  a  knowledge  empirically  of  the  assumptions 
of  psychology,  has  set  on  foot  an  inquiry  {enguete), 
and  put  to  several  Anarchists  the  question,  how  and 
why  they  have  become  Anarchists.  An  examina- 
tion of  the  confessions  thus  obtained  showed  that 
the  chief  peculiarity  of  the  Anarchist  mind  is  the 
inclination  to  revolt,  which  displays  itself  in  the 
most  various  forms,  such  as  a  desire  for  opposition, 
criticism,  and  love  of  modernity  (philoneismus)  ;  and 
that  this  tendency  is  combined  with  a  remarkable 
love  of  freedom  and  strongly  developed  individual- 
ity. "  The  Anarchist  must  be  free:  he  hates  laws 
and  authority" — all  three  traits  unite  in  one;  but 
Hamon's  investigations  completely  confirm  our  as- 
sertion, that  Anarchism  is  principally  an  emphasis- 

'  Cf.  F.  Dubois,  Le  P/ril  Anarchiste,  pp.  93-120  ;  mostly  super- 
ficial, but  good  on  this  topic. 


2IO  Anarchism 

ing  of  the  sentiment  of  individuality  and  freedom, 
and  cannot  be  explained  sufficiently — perhaps  not 
at  all — by  mere  pauperism  ;  in  other  words,  Anarch- 
ism is  not  an  economic  but  a  political  question. 
But  to  this  predisposition  to  individualism,  says 
Hamon,  there  must  be  united,  in  order  to  produce 
an  Anarchist,  also  a  strongly  developed  sentiment 
of  Altruism,  a  fanatical  love  of  humanity,  a  strong 
sense  of  justice,  and  finally,  a  keen  faculty  for  logic. 
We  do  not  wish  to  deny  this ;  but  we  have  seen  that 
Cosmopolitanism,  an  over-excited  sense  of  justice, 
and  a  certain  tendency  to  dialectic yVw-r  d' esprit,  has 
been  a  common  quality  of  all  the  doctrines  we  have 
hitherto  described. 

Charles  Malato  (de  Corn6),  of  the  old  Italian 
nobility,  the  son  of  a  Communist,  with  whom  he 
went  to  New  Caledonia,  is  one  of  the  chief  literary 
representatives  and  more  eager  supporters  of  the 
propaganda  of  Anarchism  in  Paris.  Besides  a  Philo- 
sophy of  Anarchy,  a  book  called  RSvolutioti  Chr^ti- 
etme  et  Revolution  Sociale,  and  the  widely  circulated 
pamphlet,  Les  Travailleiirs  des  Villes  aux  Travail- 
leurs  des  campagnes  (issued  anonymously  in  1888, 
and  recently  again  at  Lyons  in  1893),  he  has  written 
a  long-winded  diary,  De  la  Commune  h  I'Anarchie 
(Paris,  1894),  a  kind  of  family  history  of  Anarchism 
in  Paris,  its  press,  its  groups,  and  its  representatives, 
from  doctrinaires  like  Grave  and  Kropotkin  to 
the  men  of  action  like  Pini,  Ravachol,  and  Vail- 
lant. 

Other  names  of  some  note  in  the  Anarchist  world 
are  Zo  d'Axa  (his  real  name  is  Galland),  the  former 


Peter  Kropotkin  and  his  School     211 

editor  of  Len  Dehors,  a  literary  adventurer  who  has 
wandered  into  the  camp  of  every  party;  Sebastian 
Faure,  the  father  of  the  P^re  Peinard  and  author  of 
Le  Manchinisme  et  ses  Consequences  ;  Bernard  Lazare, 
Octave  Mirbeau,  Francois  Guy,  author  of  Les  Prd- 
jug^s  et  r Anarchie  (B^ziers,  1888);  Emil  Darnaud, 
author  of  La  Socie'td  Future  (1890),  Mendiattts  et 
Vagabonds,  une  Revolution  h  Foix,  and  others.  The 
programme  of  these  men  is  almost  without  excep- 
tion that  of  Kropotkin,  which  they  water  down  and 
popularise  in  numerous  newspaper  articles  and 
pamphlets.  Some  of  them,  like  Faure  and  Duprat, 
are  decidedly  men  of  action  ;  others,  like  Saurin  and 
Mirbeau,  condemn  bombs  as  the  most  sanguinary 
of  all  forms  of  authority. 

France  does  not  to-day  possess  any  representatives 
of  individualist  Anarchism.  An  isolated  adherent 
of  the  Anarchist  Collectivism  of  Proudhon  is  Adolphe 
Bonthons,  for  some  time  business  manager  of  an 
Anarchist  paper  in  Lyons,  showing  himself  an  eager 
Collectivist  and  opponent  of  rent  and  profit  in  many 
writings  {e.  g..  Menace  a  la  Bourgeoisie,  Lyons,  1882, 
and  La  Repartition  des  Produits  du  Travail,  1881 ;  of 
Garin,  Die  Anarchist  en,  p.  94),  and  demanding  quite 
in  the  style  of  the  Anarchist  agitator  the  absolute 
abolition  of  all  authority.  To-day  Bonthons  is 
quite  behind  the  times,  and  does  not  himself  regard 
himself  as  an  Anarchist. 

Finally,  we  note  as  eager  defenders  of  Anarchist 
Communism  the  Italians  Carlo  Cafiero,  the  former 
friend  of  Bakunin,  who  devoted  the  whole  of  his 
great  wealth  to  the  Anarchist  cause;  Merlino,  and 


212 


Anarchism 


Malatesta ' — all  of  them  men  of  action  of  the  most 
reckless  character,  who  have  become  acquainted 
with  the  prisons  of  many  lands,  and  still  wander 
through  life  as  homeless  revolutionaries. 

*  I  have  only  seen  Malatesta's  dialogue  Between  Peasants  in  a 
French  translation  :  Entre  Faysans,  Traduit  de  Vltalien,  6th  ed., 
Paris,  1892. 


CHAPTER  VI 


GERMANY,    ENGLAND,    AND  AMERICA 

Individualist  and  Communist  Anarchism — Arthur  Mulberger — Theo- 
dor  Hertzka's  Freeland — Eugen  Duhring's  "  Anticratism  " — 
Moritz  von  Egidy's  "United  Christendom"  —  John  Henry 
Mackay — Nietzsche  and  Anarchism — Johann  Most — Auberon 
Herbert's  "Voluntary  State" — R.  B.  Tucker. 

HERE  is  a  well-marked  geographical 
division,  not  only  in  the  Anarchism 
of  agitation,  but  also  in  Anarchist 
theory.  The  Anarchist  Communism, 
to  which  the  "  propaganda  of  action  " 
is  allied,  appears  to  be  almost  exclusively  confined 
to  the  Romance  peoples,  the  French,  Spaniards,  and 
Italians;  while  the  Teutonic  nations  appear  to  in- 
cline more  towards  individualist  Anarchism.  If  this 
geographical  division  is  not  quite  exact,  it  must  be 
remembered  that  these  views  themselves  are  not  so 
clearly  separated,  and  that  the  ideas  of  Proudhon 
rarely  develop  into  pure  Individualism  as  proclaimed 
by  Stirner.  The  external  distinction  between  Indi- 
vidualists and  Communists  is  certainly  marked  most 
clearly  by  the  condemnation  of  the  foolish  propa- 

213 


214  Anarchism 

ganda  of  action  of  the  former ;  and  in  order  to  pre- 
vent the  disagreeable  confusion  of  their  views  with 
the  perpetrators  of  bomb  outrages,  the  theorists  of 
Germany  and  England  give  their  systems  more 
harmless  names,  such  as  Free  Land,  Anticratism, 
United  Christianity,  Voluntarism,  and  so  on.  It  is 
perhaps  owing  to  this  circumstance  that  States 
which  supervise  mental  movements  in  the  minds  of 
their  citizens  so  closely,  so  anxiously,  as  do  Austria 
and  Germany,  allow  the  extension  of  the  theoretical 
propaganda  of  a  movement  which  is  only  distin- 
guished from  the  doctrines  of  Kropotkin,  as  ex- 
plained above,  by  a  difference  in  formulating  the 
common  axiom  on  which  they  are  based. 


In  the  beginning  of  the  seventies  there  appeared 
in  Germany  an  eager  worshipper  of  Proudhon, 
named  Arthur  Mulberger,  born  in  1847,  who  has 
practised  since  1873  as  a  physician,  and  lately  as 
medical  ofificer  in  Crailsheim,  and  who  has  explained 
with  great  clearness  separate  portions  of  Proudhon's 
teaching  in  various  articles  in  magazines  and  re- 
views.' Miilberger's  writings  have  certainly  chiefly 
an  historical  value ;  but  he  is  one  of  the  few  who 
have  not  merely  written  about  and  criticised  Proud- 
hon, but  have  thoroughly  studied  him.  He  is  ac- 
cordingly, in  spite  of  his  somewhat  partisan  attitude 
as  a  supporter  of  Proudhon,  certainly  his  most 
trustworthy  and  faithful  interpreter. 

Of  all  modern  phenomena,  which,  according  to 

*  Now  collected  as  Studien  fiber  Proudhon,  Stuttgart,  1893. 


Germany,  England,  and  America    215 

Proudhon's  assumption  that  complete  economic 
freedom  must  absorb  all  political  authority,  should 
introduce  Anarchy  by  means  of  economic  institu- 
tions, the  most  important  is  undoubtedly  the  so- 
called  "  Free  Land  "  movement,  whose  "  father"  is 
Theodor  Hertzka.  Born  on  the  13th  July,  1845,  ^t 
Buda  Pesth,  Hertzka  studied  law,  but  afterwards 
turned  to  journalism,  in  which  he  gained  the  reputa- 
tion of  the  most  brilliant  journalist  in  Vienna.  In 
the  seventies  he  was  editor  of  the  Neue  Freie  Presse, 
and  in  1880  he  founded  the  Vienna  Allgemeine 
Zeitung ;  but  since  1889  he  has  been  editor  of  the 
Zeitschrift  fur  Staatsund  Volkwirthschaft.  His 
book  Freeland,  a  picture  of  the  society  of  the  future 
{Freiland,  ein  Sociales  Zukunftsbild),  which  appeared 
in  1889,  had  an  extraordinary  success,  and  produced 
a  movement  for  the  realisation  of  the  demands  and 
ideas  therein  expressed.  The  expedition  which  was 
sent  out  to  "  Freeland,"  after  years  of  agitation, 
prepared  at  great  expense  and  watched  with  the 
eager  curiosity  of  all  Europe,  appears  to-day,  how- 
ever— as  was  hardly  to  be  wondered  at — to  have 
failed. 

"  Freeland,"  as  depicted  by  Hertzka  in  his  social 
romance,  is  a  community  founded  upon  the  principle 
of  unlimited  publicity  combined  with  unlimited 
freedom.  Everyone  throughout  "  Freeland  "  must 
be  able  to  know  at  any  time  what  commodities  are 
in  greater  or  less  demand,  and  what  branches  of 
work  produce  greater  or  less  profit.  Thus  in  "  Free- 
land  "  everybody  has  the  right  and  the  power  to 
apply  himself,  as  far  as  he  is  capable,  to  those  forms 


2i6  Anarchism 

of  production  that  are  at  any  time  most  profitable. 
A  careful  department  of  statistics  publishes  in  an 
easily  read  and  rapid  form  every  movement  of  pro- 
duction and  consumption,  and  thus  the  movement 
of  prices  in  all  commodities  is  quickly  brought  to 
everyone's  notice.  But  in  order  that  everyone  may 
undertake  that  branch  of  production  most  suitable 
and  profitable  to  him,  from  the  information  thus 
obtained,  the  necessary  means  of  production,  includ- 
ing the  forces  of  nature,  are  freely  at  the  disposal  of 
all,  without  interest,  but  a  repayment  has  to  be 
made  out  of  the  result  of  production. 

Each  has  a  right  to  the  full  return  from  his  labour ; 
this  is  obtained  by  free  association  of  the  workers. 
The  entrance  into  each  association  is  free  to  every- 
one, and  anyone  can  leave  any  association  at  any 
time.  Each  member  has  a  right  to  a  share  in  the 
net  product  of  the  association  corresponding  to  the 
work  done  by  him.  The  work  done  is  reckoned  for 
each  member  in  proportion  to  the  number  of  hours 
worked.  The  work  done  by  the  freely  elected  and 
responsible  managers  or  directors  is  reckoned,  by 
means  of  free  agreement  made  with  each  member 
of  the  union,  as  equal  to  a  certain  number  of  hours' 
work  per  day.  The  profit  made  by  the  community 
is  reckoned  up  at  the  close  of  each  working  year, 
and  after  deduction  for  repayment  of  capital,  and 
the  taxes  payable  to  the  "  Freeland  "  common- 
wealth, is  divided  amongst  its  members.  The 
members,  in  case  of  the  failure  or  liquidation  of  the 
association,  are  liable  for  its  debts  in  proportion  to 
their  share  of  the  profits.     This   liability   for  the 


Germany,  England,  and  America     217 

debts  of  the  association  corresponds,  in  case  of  dis- 
solution, to  the  claim  of  the  guarantor  members  on 
the  property  available.  The  highest  authority  of 
the  association  is  the  General  Assembly,  in  which 
every  member  possesses  the  same  voting  power, 
active  and  passive.  The  conduct  of  the  business  of 
the  company  is  placed  in  the  hands  of  a  directorate, 
chosen  by  the  General  Assembly  for  a  certain  period, 
whose  appointment  is,  however,  revocable  at  any 
time.  Besides  this  the  General  Assembly  elects 
every  year  an  overseer  who  has  to  watch  over  the 
conduct  of  the  directors.  There  are  neither  masters 
nor  servants;  only  free  workers;  there  are  also  no 
proprietors,  only  employers  of  the  capital  of  the  as- 
sociation. The  forms  of  capital  necessary  for  pro- 
duction are  therefore  as  free  from  owners  as  is  the 
land. 

The  most  extensive  publicity  of  all  business  pro- 
ceedings is  the  prime  supposition  for  the  proper 
working  of  this  organisation,  which  can  only  exist 
by  the  removal  of  all  hindrances  to  the  free  activity 
of  the  individual  will  guided  by  enlightened  self- 
interest.  There  can  and  need  be  no  business  secrets ; 
on  the  contrary,  it  is  the  highest  interest  of  all  to 
see  that  everyone's  capacity  for  work  is  directed  to 
where  it  will  produce  the  best  results.  The  working- 
statements  of  the  producers  are  therefore  published  ; 
the  purchase  and  sale  of  all  imaginable  products  and 
commodities  of  "  Freeland  "  trade  takes  place  in 
large  warehouses,  managed  and  supervised  for  the 
benefit  of  the  community. 

The  highest  authority  in  "  Freeland"  is  at  the 


2i8  Anarchism 

same  time  the  banker  of  the  whole  population.  Not 
merely  every  association,  but  every  person  has  his 
account  in  the  books  of  the  Central  Bank,  which 
looks  after  all  payments  inwards  as  well  as  all  money 
paid  out  from  the  greatest  to  the  smallest  by  means 
of  a  comprehensive  clearing  system. 

All  the  expenditure  of  the  community  is  defrayed 
by  all  in  common,  and  by  each  person  singly, 
exactly  in  proportion  to  its  income ;  for  which  pur- 
pose the  Central  Bank  debits  each  with  his  share  in 
the  total. 

The  chief  item  in  the  budget  of  "  Freeland  "  ex- 
penditure is  "  maintenance  ";  which  includes  every- 
thing spent  on  account  of  persons  incapacitated  for 
work  or  excused  from  it,  and  who  therefore  have  a 
right  to  free  support,  such  as  all  women,  children, 
sick  persons,  defectives,  and  men  over  sixty  years  of 
age.  On  the  other  hand,  justice,  police,  military, 
and  finance  arrangements  cost  nothing  in  "  Free- 
land."  There  are  no  paid  judges  or  police  officials, 
still  fewer  soldiers,  and  the  taxes,  as  seen  above, 
come  in  of  their  own  accord.  There  is  not  even  a 
code  of  criminal  or  civil  law.  For  the  settlement 
of  any  disputes  that  may  arise,  arbitrators  are 
chosen,  who  make  their  decisions  verbally,  and  from 
whom  there  is  an  appeal  to  the  Board  of  Arbitra- 
tors. But  they  have  practically  nothing  to  do,  for 
there  is  neither  robbery  nor  theft  in  "  Freeland"; 
since  "  men  who  are  normal  in  mind  and  morals 
cannot  possibly  commit  any  violences  against  other 
people  in  a  community  in  which  all  proper  interests 
of  each  member  are  equally  regarded."     Criminals 


Germany,  England,  and  America     219 

are  therefore  treated  as   people  who  are  suffering 
from  mental  or  moral  disease. 

We  need  not  point  out  that  we  here  have  to  deal 
with  an  attempt  to  revive  Proudhon's  thoughts 
and  plans,  and  that  our  criticisms  on  these  apply 
equally  to  Freeland.  If  to-day  extravagant  praise  is 
lavished  on  Hertzka's  originality,  that  only  proves 
that  people  who  criticise  and  condemn  Proudhon  so 
readily  have  not  read  him ;  and  even  when  Arch- 
dukes give  the  "  Freeland"  project  their  moral  and 
financial  support,  that  only  proves  again  how  little, 
even  now,  the  real  meaning  of  Anarchism  is  under- 
stood, and  how  slavishly  people  submit  to  words. 


Eugen  Diihring  has  raved  against  "  the  State 
founded  on  force  "  as  often  as  against  Anarchism, 
in  his  various  writings ;  he  has  as  often  pronounced 
a  scornful  judgment  upon  the  literary  connections 
of  Anarchism  as  he  has  sought  to  ally  himself  with 
the  so-called  "  honourable"  Anarchists  in  his  little 
paper  ( The  Modern  Spirit — Der  Moderen  Volkergeist, 
in  Berlin)  that  is  apparently  brought  out  for  the 
sake  of  a  Diihring  cult.  There  appears  at  least  to 
be  a  contradiction  between  the  theory  of  Anarchism 
and  Diihring's  Anti-Semitism.  Nevertheless,  Duh- 
ring  undoubtedly  belongs  to  the  Anarchists,  and  has 
never  very  seriously  defended  himself  against  this 
charge.  His  haughty  and  biassed  criticisms  of 
Proudhon,  Stirner,  and  Kropotkin  (he  excepts  only 
Bakunin,  the  enemy  of  the  "  Hebrew"  Marx)  are 
sufficiently  explained  by  his  own  unexampled  weak- 


220  Anarchism 

ness  and  love  of  belittling  others,  without  seeking 
any  further  motives;  "  it  must  be  night  where  his 
own  stars  shine  " ;  and  as  his  followers  have  gener- 
ally read  nothing  else  beside  his  lucubrations,  it  is 
very  easy  to  explain  the  great  influence  which 
Diihring  exercises  at  present  upon  the  youth  of 
Germany,  and  why  he  is  regarded  by  some  people 
as  the  only  man  of  genius  since  Socrates,  and  as  a 
man  of  the  most  unparalleled  originality,  which  he 
is  not,  by  a  long  way. 

However  much  Diihring  may  belittle  Proudhon, 
he  is  himself,  at  least  as  a  social  politician,  and  cer- 
tainly as  an  economist,  merely  a  weak  dilution  of 
Proudhon.  In  The  Modern  Spirit  Proudhon's  An- 
archism was  recently  credited  with  the  intention  of 
abolishing  not  only  all  government,  but  all  organis- 
ation. Diihring,  it  was  said,  had  reduced  this  mis- 
taken view  to  its  proper  origin,  and  in  place  of 
Anarchism  had  set  up  "  Anticratism,"  which  does 
not  intend  to  overthrow  direction  and  organisation, 
but  merely  to  abolish  all  unjust  force,  "  the  State 
founded  on  force."  We  who  know  Proudhon,  know 
that  what  is  here  ascribed  to  Diihring  is  exactly 
what  Proudhon  taught  as  "  no-government"  {An- 
arche);  and  there  was  nothing  left  to  the  great 
Diihring  but  to  bluff  his  half-fledged  scholars  with 
a  new  word  that  means  nothing  more  or  less  than 
Anarchy.  That  which  is  Duhring's  own,  namely, 
the  so-called  "  theory  of  force,"  has  not  an  origin 
of  any  great  profundity.  He  takes  as  the  elements 
of  society  two  human  beings — not  at  all  the  sexual 
pair  —  but   the    celebrated    "  two    men  "   of   Herr 


Germany,  England,  and  America    221 

Diihring,  one  of  whom  oppresses  the  other,  uses 
force  to  him,  and  makes  him  work  for  him.  These 
"  two  men  "  explain,  for  him,  all  economic  func- 
tions and  social  problems ;  the  origin  of  social  dis- 
tinctions, of  political  privileges,  of  property,  capital, 
betterment,  exploitation,  and  so  on.  By  these  two 
famous  men  he  lets  himself  be  guided  directly  into 
Proudhon's  path.  **  Wealth,"  declares  Diihring, 
"  is  mastery  over  men  and  things."  Proudhon 
would  never  have  been  so  silly — although  Diihring 
means  the  same  as  he  does — as  to  call  wealth  the 
mastery  over  men  and  things,  and  Engel  formulates 
the  proposition  more  correctly  as :  "  Wealth  is  the 
mastery  over  men,  by  means  of  mastery  over 
things  " ;  although  this  deserves  the  name  of  a  def- 
inition neither  in  the  logical  nor  economic  sense. 
But  Duhring  uses  his  ambiguous  proposition  in 
order  to  be  able  to  represent  riches  on  the  one  hand 
as  being  something  quite  justifiable  and  praise- 
worthy (the  mastery  over  things),  and  on  the  other 
as  robbery  (mastery  over  men),  as  "  property  due 
to  force."  Here  we  have  a  miserable  degradation 
and  commonplace  expression  of  the  antimony  of 
Proudhon:  "  Property  is  theft,"  and  "  Property  is 
liberty."  We  also  find  Proudhon,  again  distorted, 
in  Diihring's  statement  that  the  time  spent  in  work 
by  various  workers,  whether  they  be  navvies  or 
sculptors,  is  of  equal  value. 

The  "  personalist  Sociality"  of  Duhring,  as  its 
creator  terms  it  elsewhere,  is  the  conception  of 
arrangements  and  organisations  by  means  of  which 
every  individual  person  may  satisfy  all  the  necessi- 


222  Anarchism 

ties  and  luxuries  of  life,  from  the  lowest  to  the 
highest,  through  the  mutual  working  together  and 
combination  with  every  other  individual.  This  per- 
sonalist  Sociality  is,  of  course,  anti-monarchical,  and 
opposed  to  all  privileges  of  position  and  birth ;  it  is 
also  "  anti-religionist,"  for  it  recognises  no  authori- 
ties that  are  beyond  control,  except  only  conformity 
to  nature.  It  starts  from  the  actual  condition  of 
the  individual;  but  this  can  only  be  known  by  its 
actions,  and  is  not  determined  by  birth.  As  regards 
public  affairs,  positions  that  are  technically  promin- 
ent should  be  given  by  universal,  direct,  and  equal 
suffrage  to  persons  who  have  shown  by  their  actions 
that  they  possess  the  necessary  qualifications  for 
them.  As  regards  the  anti-religious  element,  which 
in  Diihring's  case  really  implies  Anti-Semitism,  the 
place  of  all  religion  and  everything  religious  is  taken 
by  Diihring's  philosophy  of  actuality  or  being. 
Among  the  just  claims  of  the  individual  person 
Diihring  reckons  not  only  bodily  freedom  and  im- 
munity from  injury,  but  also  immunity  from  eco- 
nomic injury.  Just  as  on  the  one  hand  every  kind  of 
slavery  or  limitation  by  united  action  or  social  forms 
must  be  unhesitatingly  rejected,  so,  on  the  other 
hand,  unlimited  power  of  disposal  over  the  means 
of  production  and  natural  capital  must  be  limited 
by  suitable  public  laws  in  such  a  way  that  no  one 
can  be  excluded  from  the  means  supplied  by  nature, 
and  reduced  to  a  condition  of  starvation.  The  right 
to  labour,  as  well  as  freedom  of  choice  in  labour, 
must  everywhere  be  maintained. 

The  economic  corner-stones  of  personalist  Socialty 


Germany,  England,  and  America     223 

are,  as  Diihring's  follower,  Emil  Dole,'  explains,  "  me- 
tallic currency  as  the  foundation  of  all  economic 
relationships,  and  individual  property,  especially 
capital,  as  the  necessary  and  inviolable  foundation 
for  every  condition  that  is  not  based  on  robbery 
and  violence.  The  logic  and  necessity  of  any  form 
of  society  rests  on  private  property,  and  that  is  also 
the  basis  of  Diihring's  system ;  but  his  reforms  are 
directed  to  rejecting  the  ingredients  of  injustice, 
robbery,  and  violence  towards  persons  that  are  com- 
mingled with  these  fundamental  forms.  To  bring 
this  about,  the  principle  under  which  the  merely 
economic  mechanics  of  values  have  free  play  must  be 
rejected  ;  and  instead  of  it,  the  original  personal  and 
political  rights  of  men  must  be  recognised.  Duhring 
therefore  regards  a  general  association  of  workers 
as  far  more  essential  than  strikes,  and  would  wish 
political  means  (in  the  narrower  sense  of  politics) 
brought  once  more  into  the  foreground,  and  ex- 
tended much  farther  than  before.  He  certainly 
rejects  the  trickery  of  Parliament,  but  not  a  repre- 
sentation of  the  working  classes  seriously  meant  and 
honourably  carried  out.  He  also  does  not  yield  to 
that  logic  of  wretchedness  which  expects  every  re- 
form to  arise  from  ever-increasing  misery,  but  takes 
into  account  material  and  mental  progress  and  the 
condition  of  the  masses." 

In  all  this  it  is  easy  to  recognise  Proudhon's  views ; 

'  Dole,  Eugen  Duhring,  etwas  von  dessen  Charakter,  Leistungen, 
und  reformatorischen  Beruf,  Leipzig,  1893.  Compare  also  Fr. 
Engel's,  DUhring's  Umwalzung  der  Wissenschaft,  3d  ed,  Stuttgart, 
1894. 


224  Anarchism 

even  sometimes  his  theory  of  property.  And  even 
if  their  views  are  not  alike-  formally,  and  Diihring 
does  not  quite  understand  Proudhon's  "  Mutualism," 
yet  he  ought  to  have  regarded  the  French  social  re- 
former somewhat  less  condescendingly  and  con- 
fusedly. But  he  has  also  had  a  very  low  opinion  of 
Stirner ;  yet,  however  persistently  he  and  his  follow- 
ers may  deny  it,  Diihring's  "  Personalism  "  is  not 
only  exactly  the  same  as  Stirner's  "individual" 
{Einziger),  but  Diihring  himself  is  the  most  repellent 
illustration  of  the  egoist-individual  of  Stirner,  Both 
Stirner  and  Proudhon  have  assumed  as  the  neces- 
sary pre-supposition  of  the  abolition  of  government, 
individuals  who  are  able  to  govern  themselves,  i.  e.^ 
moral  individuals,  which  means  "  persons." 

When,  finally,  Diihring  apparently  seeks  to  limit 
the  Anarchist  phrase  of  the  abolition  of  all  govern- 
ment, by  saying  that  Anticratism  is  the  denial  of  all 
unrighteous  exercise  of  force  and  usurpation  of 
authority,  this  is  palpable  fencing.  Diihring  would 
tell  the  masses  which  form  of  force  is  right  and 
which  wrong  ;  which  should  be  maintained,  and 
which  not ;  and  the  masses  will  hasten  to  follow  his 
dictates.  Diihring,  the  great  opponent  of  all  meta- 
physics and  a  priori  conceptions,  at  once  sets  up, 
just  like  Jean  Jacques  Rousseau,  "  the  modern 
Hebrew,"  an  absolute  concept  "  justice,"  and  trans- 
forms the  world  according  to  it.  Who  can  help 
laughing  at  this  ? 

Diihring  has  tried  to  reconcile  his  prejudice  against 
the  Jews  with  the  foregoing  doctrine,  by  distin- 
guishing nations  from  the  standpoint  of  personal- 


Germany,  England,  and  America    225 

ism,  and  regarding  the  existence  of  higher  races 
side  by  side  with  lower  races  as  a  hindrance — indeed 
the  most  serious  hindrance — to  the  reahsation  of 
"  personalist  SociaHty." 

"  Nothing  is  easier  than  to  make  a  wise  grimace." 

Perhaps  the  most  peculiar  of  the  circle  of  theoreti- 
cal Anarchists  is  Herr  von  Egidy.  If  Diihring  has 
succeeded  in  enlivening  Anarchism  by  an  admixture 
of  Anti-Jewish  pesecution,  Herr  von  Egidy  has  ac- 
complished the  far  greater  success  of  enlivening 
Anarchism  with  a  new  religious  cult,  called  "  United 
Christianity,"  added  to  the  spirit  of  Prussian  mili- 
tarism and  squiredom.  When  the  new  Apostle 
stood  as  a  candidate  for  the  Reichstag  in  1893,  sup- 
porting his  new  Christianity  and  the  military  pro- 
gramme rejected  by  the  dissolved  Parliament,  he 
was  able  to  secure  3000  votes.  This  is  a  piece  of 
statistics  that  shows  the  confusion  of  ideas  exist- 
ing in  so-called  intelligence. 

Moritz  von  Egidy  '  was  born  at  Mainz  on  29th 
August,  1847,  served  in  the  Prussian  army,  and 
reached  the  rank  of  Lieutenant-Colonel.  Afterwards 
he  exchanged  his  military  command  for  an  apostle- 
ship,  after  gaining  knowledge  by  private  study.  His 
Christianity  is  a  religion  without  dogmaor  confession, 
a  lucus  a  non  lucendo,  but  deserves  respect  as  a  social 
phenomenon  in  view  of  conditions  in  Germany. 

The  "  United  Christendom  "  is  to  be  the  union  of 

'  See,  for  a  study  of  his  views,  the  popular  publication,  Einiges 
Christenihum ,  Berlin,  1893,  and  the  weekly  paper  (since  1894),  Ver- 
sohrung  (Reconciliation). 


226  Anarchism 

all  men  in  the  idea  of  time  and  applied  Christianity, 
in  the  sense  of  a  humanity  that  approaches  more 
nearly  to  God.  The  new  religion  only  values  and 
lays  stress  on  life,  on  "  morality  lived";  doctrine 
and  dogma  must  be  laid  aside ;  and  thus  Von  Egidy 
arrives  at  the  remarkable  paradox  of  "  a  religion 
without  dogma  or  confession."  The  purpose  of 
religion  is  practical,  and  in  dogmas  he  sees  forms, 
among  which  each  individual  may  choose  for  him- 
self, forms  which  (according  to  the  main  principle  of 
development  which  he  places  in  the  forefront  of  all 
his  arguments)  are  in  a  state  of  continual  flux  and 
change.  What  religion  has  to  offer  is  to  be  ex- 
pressed not  in  dogmas,  but  only  in  points  of  view; 
not  in  institutions,  but  in  directions  for  guidance. 
For  this  purpose  it  is  not  necessary  that  Egidy's  dis- 
ciples should  form  themselves  into  a  church,  for  that 
even  contradicts  the  spirit  of  this  religion;  their 
master  rather  tells  them  "  to  organise  nothing,  to 
actualise  nothing."  Not  parties,  nor  unions,  but 
only  persons  and  actions,  is  what  he  wants,  and 
these  will  each  in  his  own  way  lead  men  into  the 
earthly  paradise  of  which  Egidy  speaks  with  truly 
prophetic  confidence. 

The  State,  as  we  now  know  it,  is  for  Egidy,  who 
goes  to  work  very  cautiously,  no  more  and  no  less 
than  a  link  in  the  eternal  chain  of  development ;  a 
stage,  beyond  which  he  looks  into  a  divinely  ap- 
pointed kingdom  of  the  future,  that  will  no  longer 
rest  upon  the  pillars  of  force  and  fear,  which  "  con- 
tradict the  consciousness  of  God,  wherein  there  will 
be  no  difference  between  governed  and  government." 


Germany,  England,  and  America    227 

He  quickly  disposes  of  the  objection  that  men  are 
not  fit  for  such  an  ideal  State.  "  Once  we  have 
created  conditions  in  accordance  with  the  divine 
will,  the  men  for  them  will  be  there.  If  there  was 
a  paradise  for  the  first  primitive  man,  why  should 
there  not  be  one  for  civilised  man  of  to-day  ?  We 
only  need  to  create  it  for  ourselves;  and  once  we 
have  gained  entrance  to  it  we  shall  not  be  driven 
out  of  it  a  second  time — we  have  had  our  warning. 
Of  course  the  *  old  Adam'  must  be  left  outside." 
Of  course !  But  Egidy  forgets  in  the  ardour  of  in- 
spiration that  it  is  not  so  easy  to  leave  the  old  Adam 
outside,  and  that  his  assumption  of  a  primitive  par- 
adise for  mankind,  for  the  hoinme  sauvage  of  the 
"  social  contract,"  directly  contradicts  the  theory  of 
evolution  which  he  has  just  unhesitatingly  accepted. 
He  also  contradicts  himself  when  he  at  first  main- 
tains that  the  "  conditions  in  accordance  with  the 
divine  will "  will  produce  men  fitted  for  them,  and 
afterwards  says  :  "  Do  not  let  us  trouble  about 
programmes  and  systems,  or  modes  of  execution; 
only  get  the  right  men,  and  we  need  not  trouble 
ourselves  about  how  to  realise  our  proposals." 

As  may  be  seen,  his  "  United  Christianity  "  not 
only  has  a  Socialist  side,  but  it  is  sheer  Socialism, 
the  main  basis  of  which  is  moral  and  intellectual 
self-consciousness.  Egidy  has  certainly  not  drawn 
up  a  definite  programme,  and  could  not  draw  it  up ; 
"  since  we  are  all  at  the  present  moment,  without 
exception,  undergoing  a  thorough  transformation  of 
*  the  inner  man,'  it  is  more  reasonable  to  defer  single 
efforts  till  the  general  consciousness  has  become  en- 


228  Anarchism 

lightened  on  essential  points."  Egidy  can  thus  only 
open  up  "  points  of  view"  on  the  social  question, 
leaving  everything  else  to  the  individual  and  to 
natural  evolution.  Hence  a  definite  social  doctrine 
is  excluded. 

Thus,  upon  the  question  of  property,  he  says  that 
property  is  "  not  so  much  the  source  as  the  logical 
consequence  of  the  immature  ideas  of  human  rights 
and  duties  which  we  still  hold.  With  the  progress- 
ive transformation  of  our  ideas  generally,  with  the 
adoption  of  a  totally  different  view  of  life,  with  the 
dawn  of  a  new  view  of  the  world,  our  conceptions  of 
property  will  also  alter;  not  sooner,  but  surely. 
This  new  view  of  life  will  give  a  direction  and  aim 
to  our  endeavours  for  improvement.  The  new 
treatment  of  the  question  of  property,  however, 
will  only  be  one  of  the  results  of  the  general  new 
tendencies.  Certainly  it  will  be  one  of  the  most 
important ;  but  we  do  not  need  beforehand  to  recog- 
nise any  one  of  the  manifold  tendencies  indicated  as 
a  binding  law;  just  as  we  may  generally  take  what 
is  called  Socialism  into  consideration,  as  soon  as  it 
is  offered  to  us  on  a  firmly  defined  form,  but  never 
accept  it  without  further  demur  as  a  new  law. 

"  Instead  of  the  words  *  equality  '  and  '  freedom,' 
I  say  '  self-reliance  '  and  '  independence. '  They 
express  better  that  which  concerns  the  individual; 
and  they  also  avoid  the  objection  of  being  *  impos- 
sible.'  That  even  self-reliance  and  independence 
may  experience  a  certain  limitation  from  the  de- 
mands of  our  life  in  common  one  with  another,  I 
know  quite  well;  but  they  do  not  mislead  us  be- 


Germany,  England,  and  America     229 

forehand  to  the  same  erroneous  ideas  and  especi- 
ally not  to  the  same  demands,  so  impossible  of 
fulfilment,  as  the  word  equality.  The  highest  at- 
tainable is  always  merely  that  we  create  for  the 
individual  equal,  /.  e.,  equally  good,  conditions  of 
existence.  But  owing  to  the  inequality  of  individ- 
uals similar  conditions  do  not  always  produce  by 
any  means  the  same  result  of  well-being;  the  utilisa- 
tion of  the  conditions  is  a  matter  for  the  individual, 
and  is  unequal.  Thus  we  should  have  to  arrange 
these  conditions  as  «;?equal  for  each  individual  in 
order  to  give  all  individuals  really  equal  conditions 
of  existence.  Apart  from  the  fundamental  impos- 
sibility in  our  human  imperfection,  of  doing  absolute 
justice  to  these  requirements,  the  equality  thus  re- 
stored would  the  very  next  moment  be  impaired  in 
a  thousand  different  directions." 

Egidy  is  a  pure  Anarchist,  perhaps  the  purest  of 
all,  but  he  is  certainly  not  the  wisest.  "  The  great- 
est fault  in  Anarchism,"  he  says,  "  in  the  eyes  of 
the  opponent  whom  it  has  to  overcome,  is  its  name. 
This,  however,  is  not  quite  fair  to  the  representatives 
of  these  ideas;  for  why  must  everything  have  a 
name,  and  why  must  names  be  sought  which  annihil- 
ate what  at  present  exists,  instead  of  choosing 
names  which  indicate  the  highest  connotation  of 
meanings  so  far  recognised  ?  Why  say,  *  without 
government '  ?  Why  not  rather,  *  self-discipline,  self- 
government  '  ?  Discipline  and  government  mean 
things  of  great  value ;  without  which  we  could  not 
imagine  human  existence.  The  only  question  is, 
who  exercises  government  over  us,  and  who  wields 


2^0  Anarchism 

the  rod  of  discipline:  whether  it  is  others  or  we  our- 
selves ? ' '  To  be  sure,  he  draws  a  distinction  between 
"  Anarchists  of  Blood  "  and  "  noble  Anarchists  "  ; 
he  condemns  the  former  and  associates  himself  with 
the  latter.  But  that  does  not  hinder  this  remark- 
able man  from  having  a  Bismarckian  patriotism, 
sullen  prejudices  against  the  Jews,  and,  above  all, 
incomprehensible  zeal  on  behalf  of  Prussian  Militar- 
ism and  Monarchy. 

"  The  monarchical  idea  in  itself,"  says  this  most 
remarkable  of  all  Anarchists,  "by  no  means  con- 
tradicts the  idea  of  the  self-reliance  and  independ- 
ence of  the  individual.  The  prince  will  not  be 
lacking  in  the  comprehension  necessary  for  a  redraft- 
ing of  the  monarchical  idea  to  suit  the  people  when 
they  have  attained  their  majority.  The  prince 
belongs  to  the  people ;  the  prince  the  foremost  of 
the  people ;  the  prince  in  direct  intercourse  with  the 
people.  The  prince  neither  absolute  ruler  nor  con- 
stitutional regent ;  but  the  prince  a  personality,  an 
ego ;  with  a  right  to  execute  his  will  as  equal  as  that 
of  any  one  of  the  people.  No  confused  responsibil- 
ity of  ministers  thrust  in  between  people  and  prince. 
There  is  no  '  crown  '  as  a  conception ;  there  is  only 
a  living  wearer  of  the  crown — the  king,  the  prince — 
as  responsible  head  of  the  people.  The  present 
servants  of  the  crown  become  commissioners  of  the 
people."  Compare  these  expressions  with  Proud- 
hon's  attitude  in  regard  to  the  dynastic  question 
described  above,  and  consider,  in  order  to  do  justice 
to  each,  that  Edigy  as  well  as  Proudhon  had  in 
view  when  speaking  a  monarch  who  knew  how  to 


Germany,  England,  and  America     231 

surround  himself  at  least  with  the  appearance  of 
"  social  imperialism."  If,  indeed,  Edigy  were  one 
day  to  be  disillusioned  by  his  "  social  prince," 
just  as  Proudhon  was  by  his  monarch,  yet  it  should 
not  be  forgotten  that  the  "  social  prince  "  might 
also  likewise  be  greatly  disillusioned  some  day  as  to 
the  loyalty  of  Egidy's  followers. 

Germany  possesses  an  honest  and  upright  Anar- 
chist of  a  strongly  individuaHst  tendency  in  the 
naturalised  Scot,  John  Henry  Mackay,  who  was 
born  at  Greenock  on  6th  February,  1864.  In 
Mackay  we  find  again  one  of  those  numerous 
persons  who  have  descended  from  that  sphere  of 
society  where  want  and  distress  are  only  known  by 
name,  into  the  habitations  of  human  pity,  and  have 
risen  from  these  upon  the  wings  of  poetic  fancy  and 
warmheartedness  into  the  "  regions  where  the  happy 
gods  do  dwell,"  and  where  Anarchy  does  not  need 
to  be  brought  into  being.  Mackay  is  of  an  essen- 
tially artistic  nature ;  like  Cafiero,  he  is  also  a  million- 
aire, which  means  a  completely  independent  man. 
Both  these  circumstances  are  needed  to  explain  his 
individualist  Anarchism.  His  novel,  which  created 
some  sensation,  entitled  The  Anarchist :  A  Picture  of 
Society  at  the  Close  of  the  Nineteenth  Century  /  which 
appeared  in  1 891,  is  a  pendant  to  Theodor  Hertzka's 
novel,  Freeland,  to  which  it  is  also  not  inferior  in 
genuinely  artistic  effects,  as  e.  g.,  the  development 

*  Die  Anarchisten,  etc.  ;  Zurich  Verlagsmagazin  ;  a  popular  edition 
has  also  appeared  in  Berlin  ;  also  an  English  translation.  Boston, 
1891  ;  and  in  French,  Paris,  1892. 


232  Anarchism 

of  the  character  of  Auban,  an  egoist  of  Stimer's 
kind,  and  in  touching  description,  as  that  of  poverty 
in  Whitechapel.  The  book  does  not  contain  any 
new  ideas :  but  is  nevertheless  important  as  making 
a  thorough  and  clear  distinction  between  individual- 
ist and  communist  Anarchism ;  while,  on  the  other 
hand,  the  glaring  colouring  of  the  descriptions  of 
misery  possesses  a  certain  provocative  energy  which 
the  author  certainly  did  not  intend,  for  he  rejects 
the  ".  propaganda  of  action." 

It  is  only  to  be  expected  as  a  matter  of  course 
that  in  Germany  as  in  France,  that  literary  Bohemia, 
certain  "  advanced  minds  "  should  prefer  to  give 
themselves  out  as  Anarchists  and  Individualists,  as 
Einzige ;  but  it  must  not  therefore  be  concluded 
that  it  is  our  duty  to  concern  ourselves  with  writers 
such  as  Pudor,  Bruno  Wille,  and  others.  We 
might  indeed  utter  a  warning  against  extending  too 
widely  the  boundaries  of  Anarchist  theory,  and  thus 
obliterating  them  altogether.  In  our  opinion  it  is 
quite  incorrect  to  regard  as  a  theoretical  Anarchist 
every  author  who,  like  Nietzsche,'  preached  a  purely 

'  Even  in  a  philosophic  sense,  Nietzsche's  Anarchism  is  a  mere 
fable.  Schellwien  truly  remarks:  "Max  Stirner  replaces  freedom 
by  individuality,  by  the  evolution  of  the  individual  as  such,  but  he 
cannot  shew  that  anything  else  would  happen  but  the  oppression  of 
the  weaker  individuality  by  the  stronger  ;  a  state  of  things  in  which 
not  individuality  but  brute  force  would  reign.  Friedrich  Nietzsche 
draws  this  conclusion,  and  would  have  this  oppression  of  the  weak  by 
the  strong  ;  he  would  have  the  aristocratic  will  of  the  stronger,  who 
in  his  eyes  are  alone  the  good.  He  raises  the  '  will  for  power'  to  a 
world-principle."  Elsewhere  Nietzsche  positively  advocates,  e.  g., 
the  reduction  of  some  men  to  slavery  for  the  benefit  of  the  aristocracy 
of  the  strong.     This  sort  of  thing  is  hardly  Anarchism, 


Germany,  England,  and  America     233 

philosophic  individualism  or  egotism,  without  ever 
having  given  a  thought  to  the  reformation  of  society. 
To  what  does  this  lead  ?  Some  even  include  Ibsen 
among  theoretical  Anarchists  because  in  a  letter  to 
Brandes  he  exclaims:  "  The  State  is  the  curse  of 
the  individual.  The  State  must  go.  I  will  take 
part  in  this  revolution.  Let  us  undermine  the  idea 
of  the  State;  let  us  set  up  free  will  and  afifinity  of 
spirit  as  the  only  conditions  for  any  union :  that  is 
the  beginning  of  a  freedom  that  is  worth,  some- 
thing." Such  expressions  may  certainly  show  Ib- 
sen's Anarchist  tendencies,  but  they  by  no  means 
elevate  him  to  the  position  of  a  teacher;  for  that 
position  one  might  sooner  quote  one  of  his  own 
most  powerful  characters,  Brand,  that  modern  Faust 
after  the  style  of  Stirner.  But  Brand  is  a  gloomy 
figure,  who  would  not  make  many  converts  to  indi- 
vidualism. 


We  may  here  cursorily  notice  the  position  of 
Johann  Most  in  the  theory  of  Anarchism,  although 
this  man,  fateful  and  gloomy  as  has  been  his  role  in 
the  history  of  Anarchist  action,  can  hardly  be  taken 
into  account  as  a  theorist,  and,  moreover, — which  is 
more  important, — he  is  not  even  a  pure  Anarchist. 
Johann  Most  forms  the  link  between  social  Demo- 
cracy, to  which  he  formerly  attached  himself,  and 
Anarchism,  to  which  he  now  devotes  his  baleful 
talents.  But,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  Most  goes  no 
farther  than  ancient  and  modern  followers  of  Baboeuf 
have  gone  at  all  times;  the  "  decision  of  society  " 


234  Anarchism 

is  the  authoritative  boundary  which  separates  him 
from  the  communist  Anarchists. 

Land  and  all  movable  and  immovable  capital 
should,  in  his  opinion,  be  the  property  of  the  whole 
of  society, — here  we  perceive  a  very  conservative 
notion  as  compared  with  Kropotkin, — but  should  be 
given  up  for  the  use  of  the  single  groups  of  producers, 
which  may  be  formed  by  free  agreement  {libre  en- 
tente) among  themselves.  The  products  of  industry 
should  remain  the  property  of  those  organisations 
whose  work  and  creation  they  are,  thus  becoming 
collective  property.  To  determine  value  and  price, 
bureaux  of  experts  should  be  formed  by  society — an 
arrangement  which  Grave  considers  highly  reaction- 
ary, because  implying  authority, — and  these  bureaux 
are  to  calculate  how  much  work  is  represented  in 
each  community,  and  what  is  its  value  on  this  basis. 
The  price  thus  determined  cannot  be  altered,  because 
consumers  will  also  form  free  groups,  for  the  purpose 
of  buying,  just  as  the  producers  did.  Other  free 
groups  will  look  after  the  bringing  up  of  children. 
Marriage  becomes  a  free  contract  between  man  and 
woman,  and  can  be  entered  into  or  dissolved  at 
pleasure.  There  are  no  laws,  but  only  a  "  decision 
of  society  "  in  each  case. 

If  with  these  views  Most  must  be  regarded  among 
Anarchist  theorists — if  he  is  an  Anarchist  at  all — as 
a  representative  of  extreme  Conservatism,  yet,  on 
the  other  hand,  there  is  not  the  slightest  doubt  that 
he  must  be  looked  upon  as  the  theorist  of  force,  the 
apostle  of  the  most  violent  propaganda  of  action. 
In  his  notorious  journal,  Freiheit  {Freedom)^  as  well 


Germany,  England,  and  America     235 

as  in  numberless  pamphlets,  Johann  Most  has  drawn 
up  an  inexhaustible  compendium  for  "  the  men  of 
action."  The  little  groups,  which  are  to-day  char- 
acteristic of  Anarchism,  are  his  idea,  and  his,  too, 
are  the  tactics  of  bomb-throwing.  In  the  pamphlet ' 
on  the  scientific  art  of  revolutionary  warfare  and 
dynamiters,  he  explains  exactly  where  bombs 
should  be  placed  in  churches,  palaces,  ballrooms, 
and  festive  gatherings.  Never  more  than  one  An- 
archist should  take  charge  of  the  attempt,  so  that 
in  case  of  discovery  the  Anarchist  party  may  suffer 
as  little  harm  as  possible.  The  book  contains  also 
a  complete  dictionary  of  poisons,  and  preference  is 
given  to  .  ...  Poison  should  be  employed 
against  politicians,  traitors,  and  spies.  Freedom, 
his  journal,  is  distinguished  from  the  rest  of  the 
Anarchist  press — which  is  mostly  merely  doctrinaire 
— by  its  constant  provocation  to  a  war  of  classes,  to 
murder  and  incendiarism.  "  Extirpate  the  miser- 
able brood!  "  says  Freedom,  speaking  of  owners  of 
property — "  extirpate  the  wretches!  Thus  runs  the 
refrain  of  a  revolutionary  song  of  the  working 
classes,  and  this  will  be  the  exclamation  of  the  ex- 
ecutive of  a  victorious  proletariate  army  when  the 
battle  has  been  won.  For  at  the  critical  moment 
the  executioner's  block  must  ever  be  before  the 
eyes  of  the  revolutionary.  Either  he  is  cutting  off 
the  heads  of  his  enemies  or  his  own  is  being  cut  off. 
Science  gives  us  means  which  make  it  possible  to 
accomplish  the  wholesale  destruction  of  these  beasts 

'  Die  wissenschafiliche  revolutiondre  Kriegskunst  und  aer  Dynamit 
yahrer. 


236  Anarchism 

quietly  and  deliberately."  Elsewhere  he  says, 
"  Those  of  the  reptile  brood  who  are  not  put  to 
the  sword  remain  as  a  thorn  in  the  flesh  of  the  new 
society ;  hence  it  would  be  both  foolish  and  criminal 
not  to  annihilate  utterly  this  race  of  parasites,"  and 
so  forth. 

These  are  only  a  few  specimens  of  the  jargon  of 
"  Anarchism  of  action,"  of  which  Johann  Most  is 
the  classic  representative  ;  we  shall  refer  elsewhere 
to  his  varied  activity  as  such. 


Most,  whose  special  Anarchist  influence  is  exer- 
cised on  English  soil,  is  also  the  link  between 
German  and  English  Anarchism. 

England  possesses  a  theorist  of  a  higher  type  in 
Auberon  Herbert,  who,  like  Bakunin  and  Kropot- 
kin,  is  a  scion  of  a  noble  house.  Herbert  began  as 
a  representative  of  Democracy  in  the  seventies,  and 
to-day  edits  in  London  a  paper  called  The  Free  Life, 
in  which  he  preaches  an  individualist  Anarchism  of 
his  own,  or,  as  he  himself  calls  it,  "  Voluntarism." 
He  does  not  wish  constituted  society,  as  such,  to  be 
abolished;  his  "  voluntary  State  "  is  distinguished 
from  the  present  compulsory  State  in  that  it  is  ab- 
solutely free  to  any  individual  to  enter  or  leave  the 
State  as  he  wishes. 

"  I  demand,"  says  Herbert,'  "  that  the  individual 
should  be  self-owner,  the  actual  owner  of  his  bodily 
and  mental  capacities,  and  in  consequence  owner  of 

'  Anarchy  and  Voluntarism  (  T'A^ />«  Z»/Qr),  vol.  ii,,  p.  99,  October, 
1894. 


Germany,  England,  and  America     237 

all  that  he  can  acquire  by  these  capacities,  only  as- 
suming that  he  treats  his  fellow-men  as  his  equals 
and  as  owners  of  their  own  capacities." 

"  If  thus  the  individual  is  legally  master  of  him- 
self and  legally  owner  of  all  that  he  has  won  by  the 
aid  of  his  own  capabilities,  then  we  must  further 
conclude  that  the  individual  as  such  has  the  right  to 
defend  what  is  his  own,  even  by  force  against  force 
(understanding  by  force  those  forms  of  deception 
which  are  in  reality  only  an  equivalent  of  force); 
and  since  he  now  has  this  right  of  defence  by  force, 
he  can  transfer  it  to  a  corporation  and  to  men  who 
undertake  to  watch  over  the  practical  application  of 
this  right  on  his  behalf;  which  corporation  may  be 
denoted  by  the  practical  term  of  '  State.'  The 
State  is  rightfully  born,  only  if  the  individuals  have 
the  choice  of  handing  over  to  it  their  right  of  de- 
fence, and  that  no  individual  is  compelled  to  take 
part  in  it  when  once  formed,  or  to  maintain  it. 
When  we  consider  that  every  force  must  be  set  in 
action  for  some  definite  purpose,  the  State  or  the 
sphere  of  society's  force  must  be  organised;  yet 
every  individual  must  retain  his  natural  right  of  de- 
ciding for  himself  whether  he  will  join  the  State  and 
maintain  it  or  not.  If  then  the  State  is  legitimate 
as  an  agreement  to  defend  one's  self-ownership 
against  all  attacks,  there  are  sufficient  reasons  for 
creating  such  an  organisation  and  placing  the  exer- 
cise of  the  forces  mentioned  in  its  hands,  instead  of 
keeping  them  in  our  hands  as  individuals.  .  .  . 
I  fully  admit  that  the  right  of  exercising  force  in 
self-defence  belongs  to  the  individual  and  is  trans- 


238  Anarchism 

f erred  by  him  to  the  State;  but  the  moral  pressure 
on  the  individual  to  transfer  this  right  is  overwhelm- 
ing. Who  of  us  would  care  to  be  judge  and  execu- 
tioner at  once  in  one's  own  person  ?  Who  would 
wish  to  exercise  Lynch  law  ?  *  What  is  to  be  gained 
thereby  ?  It  is  not  a  question  of  right,  for,  as  we 
have  seen,  the  individual,  who  may  exercise  force  in 
self-defence,  can  also  transfer  this  exercise  of  his 
power,  and  if  he  can  do  this  legally,  is  it  not  a  hun- 
dred times  better  if  he  also  does  so  actually  ?  I 
willingly  admit  that,  when  it  is  solely  a  question  of 
a  group,  even  the  group,  as  the  source  of  law,  may, 
if  it  wishes,  organise  its  own  defence,  and  isolate 
itself  from  the  general  organisation  of  other  groups. 
But  I  do  not  admit  that  the  group  can  also  separate 
itself,  when  the  question  directly  concerns  other 
groups  besides  itself.  I  would  not,  for  example, 
allow  a  group  the  right  to  conduct  its  sewers  to  a 
certain  point  in  a  stream,  because  this  directly 
affects  the  interests  of  other  groups  at  other  points 
of  the  stream.  The  first  group  must  come  to  an 
understanding  with  the  other  groups  concerned ;  in 
other  words,  it  must  enter  into  a  common  organis- 
ation with  other  groups.  Or  again :  group  A  de- 
cides to  punish  those  who  instigate  to  murder,  while 
group  B  is  of  opinion  that  one  need  not  trouble 
about  words,  but  only  about  deeds.  Such  a  differ- 
ence of  views  and  procedure  is  unimportant,  so  long 
as  the  members  of  group  A  merely  associate  with 
one  another;  but  suppose  a  member  of  group  B 
were  to  incite  a  person   to   murder  a  member  of 

*  The  answer  is  obvious :  the  inhabitants  of  Texas. 


Germany,  England,  and  America    239 

group  A,  it  is  clear  that  we  should  be  confronted 
by  a  civil  war  between  the  two  groups  the  moment 
that  group  A  seeks  to  seize  and  punish  the  insti- 
gator. It  also  happens  that  in  all  cases  where  force 
has  to  be  exercised  against  persons  outside  their 
own  group  as  well  as  in  it,  some  organisation  must 
exist  between  the  groups — a  State — in  order  to  de- 
termine the  conditions  under  which  force  can  be 
exercised.  .  .  .  For  these  reasons  I  consider 
pure  Anarchy  an  impossibility ;  it  rests  upon  a  mis- 
understanding, and  is  founded  upon  the  mingling  of 
two  things  which  are  by  nature  entirely  different. 
.  .  .  Anarchy  is  the  rule  of  an  individual  over 
himself;  but  the  actions  of  an  individual  in  self- 
defence,  however  just  they  may  be,  are  not  founded 
entirely  upon  self-ownership,  but  are  of  a  mixed 
nature,  since  they  include  rule  over  one's  self  and 
over  others.  The  object  of  Anarchy  is  self-govern- 
ment, but  we  exceed  the  sphere  of  self-government 
as  soon  as  we  stretch  out  our  hand  to  exercise  force. 
The  error  which  pure  Anarchists  commit  lies  in  the 
fact  that  they  apply  the  ideas  of  self-government, 
self-ownership,  or  freedom  to  force.  Between  ac- 
tions of  freedom  and  actions  involving  force  a  line 
must  necessarily  be  drawn,  which  separates  them  for 
ever.  As  far  as  concerns  a  question  of  free  will,  e.  g. , 
the  posting  of  letters,  arrangements  for  education, 
all  contracts  of  labour  and  capital,  we  can  dispense 
with  any  authority ;  we  can  be  Anarchists,  because 
in  these  cases  it  is  not  necessary  for  me  or  for  you 
to  exercise  or  to  undergo  compulsion.  We  may 
leave  the  group  whose  actions  we  do  not  approve 


240  Anarchism 

of,  we  may  stand  alone  as  individuals,  we  may  fol- 
low exclusively  the  law  of  our  nature  ;  but  the 
moment  we  proceed  to  measures  of  defence,  to  ac- 
tions implying  limitation  or  discipline,  to  actions 
which  encroach  upon  the  self-ownership  of  others, 
the  whole  state  of  things  is  altered.  The  moment 
force  has  to  be  exercised,  an  apparatus  of  force 
must  be  set  up;  if  we  wish  to  exercise  force,  it 
must  be  publicly  proclaimed,  and  we  must  publicly 
agree  upon  what  conditions  it  is  to  be  applied ;  it 
must  be  surrounded  by  guarantees  and  so  on. 
Force  and  the  unconditional  freedom  of  the  indi- 
vidual, or  Anarchy,  are  incompatible  ideas,  and 
therefore  I  am  a  Voluntarist,  not  an  Anarchist — a 
Voluntarist  in  all  questions  where  Voluntarism  is 
admissible  ;  but  I  return  into  the  State  when  by 
the  nature  of  things  some  organisation  is  neces- 
sary. ' ' 

Practically  Auberon  Herbert's  distinction  of  terms 
is  merely  playing  with  words;  for  the  "  voluntary 
State,"  which  I  can  leave  at  any  moment,  from 
which  I  can  withdraw  my  financial  support  if  I  do 
not  approve  of  its  actions,  is  Proudhon's  federation 
of  groups  in  its  strictest  form;  perhaps  it  is  even 
the  practical  outcome  of  Stirner's  Union  of  Egoists; 
at  any  rate  Herbert,  like  Stirner,  prefers  the  uncon- 
ditional acceptance  of  the  principle  of  laisser  faire, 
without  reaching  it,  like  Proudhon,  by  means  of  the 
thorny  circumlocution  of  a  complicated  organisation 
of  work.  Carried  into  practice.  Voluntarism  would 
be  as  like  Anarchism  as  two  peas.  None  the  less 
we   must  not   undervalue  the  theoretical  progress 


Germany,  England,  and  America    241 

shown  in  the  distinction  quoted  above.  Herbert 
approaches  within  a  hair's-breadth  of  the  stand- 
point of  Sociology,  and  what  separates  him  from  it 
is  not  so  much  the  logical  accentuation  of  the  social- 
contract  theory  as  the  indirect  assumption  of  it. 


In  America  we  find  views  similar  to  Auberon 
Herbert's. 

The  traces  of  Anarchist  ideas  in  the  United  States 
go  back  as  far  as  the  fifties.  Joseph  Dejacque,  an 
adherent  of  Proudhon,  and  compromised  politically 
in  1848,  edited  in  New  York,  from  1858-61,  a  paper, 
Le  Libertaire,  in  which  he  at  first  preached  the  col- 
lective Anarchism  of  his  master,  but  later — though 
long  before  Kropotkin  —  drifted  into  communist 
Anarchism. 

Side  by  side  there  also  arose,  almost,  as  it  seems, 
independently  of  Europe,  an  individualist  school, 
the  origin  of  which  goes  back  somewhere  to  the  be- 
ginning of  the  century.  Here  the  ideas  of  a  free 
society,  such  as  Thompson  had  imagined  and 
taught,  found  rapid  and  willing  acceptance,  and 
were  expanded,  by  men  like  Josiah  Warren,  Stephen 
Pearl  Andrews,  Lysander  Spooner,  and  others,  to 
the  idea  of  "  individual  sovereignty,"  which  to-day 
possesses  its  most  important  champion  in  R.  B. 
Tucker,  the  editor  of  the  journal,  Liberty,  in  Boston, 
and   which   approaches  most   closely  to  Herbert's 

idea  of  the  "  voluntary  State." 
16 


PART    III 


THE  RELATION  OF  ANARCHISM  TO  SCIENCE 
AND  POLITICS 


S43 


CHAPTER   VII 

ANARCHISM  AND  SOCIOLOGY :  HERBERT  SPENCER 

Spencer's  Views  on  the  Organisation  of  Society — Society  Conceived 
from  the  Nominalist  and  Realist  Standpoint — The  Idealism  of 
Anarchists — Spencer's  Work  :  From  Freedom  to  Restraint. 

HEN  Vaillant  was  before  his  judges  he 
mentioned  Herbert  Spencer,  among 
others,  as  one  of  those  from  whom 
he  had  derived  his  Anarchist  convic- 
tions. Anarchists  refer  not  seldom 
to  the  gray-headed  Master  of  Sociology  as  one  of 
themselves;  and  still  more  often  do  the  Socialists 
allude  to  him  as  an  Anarchist.  People  like  Lave- 
leye,  Lafarque,  and  (lately)  Professor  Enrico  Ferri,' 
have  allowed  themselves  to  speak  of  Spencer's 
Anarchist  and  Individualist  views  in  his  book,.  The 
Individual  versus  the  State.  If  Vaillant,  the  bomb- 
thrower,  rejoiced  in  such  ignorance  of  persons  and 
things  as  to  quote  Spencer,  without  thinking,  as  a 
fellow-thinker,  we  need  hardly  say  much  about  it ; 
but  when  men  who  are  regarded  as  authorities  in 

•  Socialismus  und  Moderne  Wissenschaft,  p.  129.     Leipsic,  1895. 


245 


246  Anarchism 

so-called  scientific  Socialism,  do  the  same,  we  can 
only  perceive  the  small  amount  either  of  conscien- 
tiousness or  science  with  which  whole  tendencies  of 
the  social  movement  are  judged,  and  judged  too  by 
a  party  which,  before  all  others,  is  interested  in 
procuring  correct  and  precise  judgments  on  this 
matter.  For  those  who  number  Herbert  Spencer 
among  the  Anarchists,  either  do  not  understand  the 
essence  of  Anarchism,  or  else  do  not  understand 
Spencer's  views;  or  both  are  to  them  a  terra  in- 
cognita. 

As  far  as  concerns  the  book,  The  Individual  ver- 
sus the  State  (London,  1885),  this  is  really  only  a 
closely  printed  pamphlet  of  some  thirty  pages,  in 
which  Spencer  certainly  attacks  Socialism  severely 
as  an  endeavour  to  strengthen  an  organisation  of 
society,  based  on  compulsion,  at  the  expense  of 
individual  freedom  and  of  voluntary  organisations 
already  secured ;  but  not  a  single  Anarchist  thought 
is  to  be  found  in  his  pages,  unless  any  form  of  op- 
position to  forcing  human  life  into  a  social  organisa- 
tion of  regimental  severity  is  to  be  called  Anarchism. 
We  may  remark  eti  passant  that  here  we  have  a 
splendid  example  of  freedom  of  thought  as  under- 
stood by  the  Socialists;  in  their  (so-called)  free 
people's  State  the  elements  of  Anarchism  would 
assume  a  much  more  repulsive  form  than  under  the 
present  bourgeois  conditions.  And  that  is  just  what 
Spencer  prophesies  in  his  little  book. 

Spencer  appeals  in  this  work  to  his  views  upon  a 
possible  organisation  of  society  better  than  the 
present,  as  he  has  indicated  in   The  Study  of  Socio- 


Anarchism  and  Sociology        247 

logy.  Political  Institutions,  and  elsewhere  ;  and  we 
think  we  ought  to  permit  the  appeal  and  present 
Spencer's  views,  not  for  the  sake  of  Herbert  Spencer 
— for  we  cannot  undertake  to  defend  everyone  who 
is  suspected  of  Anarchism, — but  because  he  is  the 
most  important  representative  of  a  school  of  thought 
which  some  day  or  other  will  be  called  upon  to  say 
the  last  word  in  the  scientific  discussion  of  the  so- 
called  social  question,  and  because  we  now  wish  to 
set  forth  clearly,  once  for  all,  what  Anarchism  is,  in 
whatever  disguise  it  may  cloak  itself,  and  what 
Anarchism  is  not,  however  far  it  may  go  in  accent- 
uating freedom  of  development. 


The  quintessence  of  Spencer's  views  upon  the 
organisation  of  society — the  point  from  which  the 
pamphlet  so  misused  by  Ferri  proceeds — is  some- 
thing like  this.  The  organisation  which  is  the  nec- 
essary preliminary  to  any  form  of  united  social  en- 
deavour is,  whether  regarded  historically  or  a  priori, 
not  of  a  single  but  of  a  twofold  nature,  a  nature 
essentially  different  both  in  origin  and  conditions. 
The  one  arises  immediately  from  the  pursuit  of  in- 
dividual aims,  and  only  contributes  indirectly  to  the 
social  welfare ;  it  develops  unconsciously,  and  is  not 
of  a  compulsory  character.  The  other,  which  pro- 
ceeds directly  from  the  pursuit  of  social  aims,  and 
only  contributes  indirectly  to  the  welfare  of  the 
individual,  develops  consciously,  and  is  of  a  com- 
pulsory character  {cf.  Principles,  iii.,  p.  447). 
Spencer  galls  the  first,  voluntary  ^  organisation  th^ 


248  Anarchism 

industrial  type,  because  it  always  accompanies  the 
appearance  of  industrial  and  commercial  interests; 
but  the  second,  compulsory,  organisation  the  war- 
like type,  because  it  is  a  consequence  of  the  need  of 
external  defence  for  the  community.  The  industrial 
type  of  Spencer,  based  upon  the  individualist  senti- 
ment, results  in  what  we  have  come  to  know  as 
convention  ;  the  military  or  warlike  type,  which 
addresses  itself  exclusively  to  altruistic  feelings, 
leads  to  the  State  (status).  The  "  social  "  ques- 
tion, when  solved  exclusively  by  the  first  method, 
we  know  already  as  Anarchy ;  solved  by  the  second, 
it  is  Socialism  in  the  narrower  sense. 

However  much  these  two  types  may  seem  to  ex- 
clude each  other  in  their  conception,  and  actually 
do  so  when  translated  into  the  jargon  of  party,  in 
reality  they  are  by  no  means  mutually  exclusive. 
Those  forms  of  human  society  which  we  see  both  in 
the  present  and  the  past  are  by  no  means  pure 
types,  but  show  the  most  varied  gradation  and  inter- 
penetration  of  both  types ;  according  as  the  need  for 
common  defence  or  for  individual  interests  comes  to 
the  fore,  the  military  type,  that  rules  and  regulates 
everything,  or  the  industrial,  that  aims  at  free  union, 
will  preponderate.  The  vast  majority  of  all  forms 
of  society,  including  the  modern  Great  Powers,  are 
still  of  the  military  type,  for  obvious  reasons.  The 
"  idea  of  the  State  "  is  powerful  within  them,  but 
only  some  of  the  most  advanced,  which  from  their 
peculiar  circumstances  are  less  threatened  by  the 
danger  of  war,  and  therefore  devote  themselves 
more   largely  to   industry  and   commerce,  such  as 


Anarchism  and  Sociology        249 

England  and  America,  are  now  inclining  more  to 
the  industrial  type. 

Which  of  the  two  forms  deserves  the  preference 
cannot,  of  course,  be  determined  a  priori.  Spencer 
gives  it  evidently  to  the  industrial  type,  as  being  a 
higher  form  of  development,  and  he  thinks  that,  in 
the  more  or  less  distant  future,  this  will  acquire  the 
supremacy  {Principles,  iii.,  §  577).  But  he  recog- 
nises also,  as  was  only  to  be  expected,  that  it  has 
only  rarely  been  possible  to  dispense  with  the  mili- 
tary and  compulsory  organisation,  whether  in  the 
present  or  the  past,  and  that  even  in  the  future  it 
will  still  in  many  cases  be  necessary  for  social  de- 
velopment according  to  local  conditions;  and  that 
accordingly  a  universal  acceptance  of  co-operative 
work  by  convention,  on  the  Anarchist's  plan,  can- 
not be  imagined  as  possible,  because,  in  social 
organisms  as  well  as  in  individual  organisms,  the 
development  of  higher  forms  by  no  means  implies 
the  extirpation  of  lower  forms.  If  we  miss  already, 
at  this  point,  one  of  the  most  essential  traits  of 
Anarchist  doctrine,  viz.,  its  absolute  character, 
Spencer's  so-called  Anarchism  shrinks  still  more 
into  nothingness,  when  we  approach  the  industrial 
type  as  he  describes  it  in  its  complete  state. 

While  the  requirements  of  the  industrial  type  (he 
says)  simply  exclude  a  despotic  authority,  they  de- 
mand on  the  other  hand,  as  the  only  suitable  means 
of  carrying  out  the  requisite  actions  of  common 
benefit,  an  assembly  of  representatives  to  express 
the  will  of  the  whole  body.  The  duty  of  this  con- 
trolling agency,  which  may  be  denoted  in  general 


250  Anarchism 

terms  as  the  administration  of  justice,  merely  con- 
sists in  seeing  that  every  citizen  receives  neither 
more  nor  less  benefit  than  his  own  efforts  normally 
afford  him.  Hence  public  efforts  to  effect  any 
artificial  division  of  the  result  of  labour  is  of  itself 
excluded.  When  the  regime  peculiar  to  militarism, 
the  status,  has  disappeared,  the  regime  of  conven- 
tion appears  in  its  stead,  and  finds  more  and  more 
general  acceptance,  and  this  forbids  any  disturbance 
of  the  relations  of  exchange  between  the  perform- 
ance and  the  product  of  labour  by  arbitrary  division. 
Looked  at  from  another  standpoint,  the  industrial 
type  is  distinguished  from  the  military  by  the  fact 
that  it  has  a  regulating  influence,  not  simultaneously, 
both  positive  and  negative,  but  only  negative  {cf. 
Principles,  iii.,  §  575).  In  this  ever-increasing  limita- 
tion of  the  influence  of  constituted  society  lies 
another  sharply  defined  line  of  demarcation,  from 
even  the  most  conservative  forms  of  Anarchism, 
whether  it  be  Proudhon's  federal  society  or  Auberon 
Herbert's  "  voluntary  State."  For  Spencer  recog- 
nises even  for  the  most  perfect  form  of  his  society 
the  necessity  of  some  administration  of  law  ;  he 
speaks  of  a  Head  of  the  State,  even  though  he  be 
merely  elected  {Principles,  §  578);  he  would  like  to 
see  development  continued  along  the  beaten  track 
of  the  representative  system  (which  the  Anarchists 
mainly  reject),  and  even  in  certain  circumstances 
would  retain  the  principle  of  a  second  chamber  {ib., 
p.  770).  For  however  high  may  be  the  degree  of 
development  reached  by  an  industrial  society,  yet 
the  difference  between  high  and  low,  between  rulerg 


Anarchism  and  Sociology        251 

and  ruled,  can  never  be  done  away  with.  All  the 
new  improvements  which  the  coming  centuries  may 
have  in  store  for  industry  cannot  fail  to  admit  the 
contrast  between  those  whose  character  and  abilities 
raise  them  to  a  higher  rank  and  those  who  remain  in 
a  lower  sphere.  Even  if  any  mode  of  production 
and  distribution  of  goods  was  carried  out  exclusively 
by  corporations  of  labourers  working  together,  as  is 
done  even  now  in  some  cases  to  a  certain  extent, 
yet  all  such  corporations  must  have  their  chief  direct- 
ors and  their  committees  of  administration.  A 
Senate  might  then  be  formed  either  from  an  elective 
body  that  was  taken,  not  from  a  class  possessing  per- 
manent privileges,  but  from  a  group  including  all 
leaders  of  industrial  associations,  or  it  might  be 
formed  from  an  electorate  consisting  of  all  persons 
who  took  an  active  share  in  the  administration ;  and 
finally  it  might  be  so  composed  as  to  include  the 
representatives  of  all  persons  engaged  in  governing, 
as  distinguished  from  the  second  chamber  of  repre- 
sentatives of  the  governed. 

Moreover,  Spencer  himself  claims  no  sort  of  dog- 
matic obligatory  force  for  these  deductions  with  re- 
gard to  the  most  favourable  possible  form  of  future 
organisation  ;  rather  he  expressly  warns  us  that  differ- 
ent organisations  are  possible,  by  means  of  which 
the  general  agreement  of  the  whole  community  in 
sentiment  and  views  might  make  itself  felt,  and  de- 
clares that  it  is  rather  a  question  of  expediency  than 
of  principle  which  of  the  different  possible  organisa- 
tions should  finally  be  accepted  {Principles,  p.  766). 


252  Anarchism 

Incomprehensible  as  it  may  seem  that  Spencer, 
holding  such  views,  should  be  regarded  as  an  An- 
archist, and  that  too  by  men  who  ought  to  have 
understood  him  as  well  as  the  Anarchists,  yet  this 
has  been  the  case.  Therefore  we  must  guard 
against  his  lack  of  Radicalism  (as  shown  in  the  fore- 
going remarks)  being  regarded  by  various  parties 
less  as  a  necessary  result  of  his  first  premises  than  as 
the  result  of  personal  qualities  of  opportunism,  of  a 
lack  of  courage  in  facing  the  ultimate  consequences 
of  his  reasoning.  We  should  like,  therefore,  briefly 
to  note  the  wide  differences  which  separate  the 
purely  sociological  standpoint  of  Spencer  from  the 
unscientific  standpoint  of  the  Anarchists. 

It  may  be  considered  as  indifferent  whether  we 
are  accustomed  to  regard  society  as  a  natural  thing 
or  only  as  a  product  of  my  thought,  as  something 
real  and  concrete  or  as  a  mere  conception,  and  yet 
the  range  of  this  first  assumption  far  surpasses  the 
value  of  academic  contention.  No  bridge  leads 
from  one  of  these  standpoints  to  the  other,  and  as 
deep  a  gulf  separates  the  conclusions  which  are 
drawn  from  these  premises.  If  society  is  a  thing, 
something  actual  like  the  individual,  then  it  is  sub- 
ject to  the  same  laws  as  the  rest  of  nature ;  it  changes 
and  develops,  grows  and  decays,  like  all  else.  If, 
on  the  other  hand,  it  is  a  mere  conception,  then  it 
stands  and  falls  with  myself,  with  my  wish  to  set  it 
up  or  destroy  it.  Indeed,  if  society  is  nothing  but 
an  idea,  a  child  of  my  thought,  what  hinders  me 
from  throwing  it  away  as  soon  as  I  have  recognised 
its  nothingness,   since  it  is  no  more   use  to  me  ? 


Anarchism  and  Sociology        253 

Have  not  some  already  done  so  with  the  idea  of 
God,  because  they  thought  it  merely  a  product  of 
their  own  mind  ?  Here  we  may  remember  Stirner's 
argument,  which  was  only  rendered  possible  because 
he  placed  society  upon  exactly  the  same  level  as  the 
Deity,  i.  e.,  regarding  both  as  mere  conceptions. 
But,  on  the  other  hand,  if  society  exists  apart  from 
me,  apart  from  my  thought  about  it,  then  it  will  also 
develop  without  reference  to  my  personal  opinions, 
views,  ideas,  or  wishes.  In  other  words :  if  society 
is  nothing  but  the  summary  idea  of  certain  institu- 
tions, such  as  the  family,  property,  religion,  law,  and 
so  on,  then  society  stands  or  falls  with  their  sanctity, 
expediency  and  utility ;  and  to  deny  these  institu- 
tions is  to  deny  society  itself.  On  the  other  hand, 
if  society  is  the  aggregate  of  individuals  forming  it, 
then  the  institutions  just  mentioned  are  only  func- 
tions of  this  collective  body,  and  the  denial  or  aboli- 
tion of  them  means  certainly  a  disturbance,  though 
not  an  annihilation  of  society.  Society  then  can  no 
more  be  got  rid  of,  as  long  as  there  are  individuals, 
than  matter  or  force.  We  can  destroy  or  upset  an 
aggregation,  but  can  never  hinder  the  individuals 
composing  it  from  again  uniting  to  form  another 
aggregation. 

From  these  two  divergent  points  of  view  follows 
the  endless  series  of  irreconcilable  divergencies  be- 
tween Realists  and  Idealists.  For  the  former,  evolu- 
tion is  a  process  that  is  accomplished  quite  uncon- 
sciously, and  is  determined  exclusively  by  the 
condition  at  any  time  of  the  elements  forming  the 
aggregate,  and  their  varying  relations.     The  Idealist 


254  Anarchism 

also  likes  to  talk  of  an  evolution  of  society,  but 
since  this  is  only  the  evolution  of  an  idea,  there  can 
be  no  contradiction,  and  it  is  only  right  and  fair  for 
him  to  demand  that  this  evolution  should  be  accom- 
plished in  the  direction  of  other  and  (as  he  thinks) 
higher  ideas,  the  realisation  of  which  is  the  object 
of  society.  So  he  comes  to  demand  that  society 
should  realise  the  ideas  of  Freedom,  Equality,  and 
the  like.  A  society  which  does  not  wish,  or  is  un- 
fitted to  do  this,  can  and  must  be  overthrown  and 
annihilated. 

When  we  hear  these  destructive  opinions,  which 
are  continually  spreading,  characterised  as  a  lack  of 
idealism,  we  cannot  restrain  a  smile  at  the  confusion 
of  thought  thus  betrayed.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  the 
social  revolutionaries  of  the  present  day,  and  especi- 
ally the  Anarchists,  are  idealists  of  the  first  rank, 
and  that  too  not  merely  because  of  their  nominalist 
way  of  regarding  society,  but  they  are  idealists  also 
in  a  practical  sense.  The  society  of  the  present  is 
in  their  eyes  utterly  bad  and  incapable  of  improve- 
ment, because  it  does  not  correspond  to  the  ideas 
of  freedom  and  equality.  But  the  fault  of  this  does 
not  lie  in  men  as  such,  or  in  their  natural  attributes 
and  defects,  but  in  society,  that  is  (since  it  is  merely 
an  idea),  in  the  faulty  conceptions  and  prejudices 
which  men  have  as  to  the  value  of  society.  Men 
in  themselves  are  good,  noble,  and  possess  the  most 
brotherly  sentiments;  and  not  only  that,  but  they 
are  diligent  and  industrious  from  an  innate  impulse; 
society  alone  has  spoiled  them.  These  assumptions 
we  have  seen  in  all  Anarchists ;  they  are  the  inevit- 


Anarchism  and  Sociology        255 

able  premises  of  their  ideal  of  the  future,  an  ideal 
of  a  free,  just,  and  brotherly  form  of  society;  but 
they  are  the  necessary  consequence  of  the  first  as- 
sumption, of  the  idealist  conception  of  society  itself, 
which  is  common  to  all  Anarchists,  with  the  single 
exception  of  Proudhon,  whose  peculiarities  and  con- 
tradictions we  have  dealt  with  above. 

Herbert  Spencer,  and  with  him  the  sociological 
school  generally,  cannot  of  course  accept  the  con- 
clusions of  a  premise  which  they  do  not  assume. 
Comparative  study  of  the  life  of  primitive  races, 
scientific  anthropology,  and  exact  psychology,  all 
show  this  well-meaning  assumption  to  be  a  mere 
delusion.  Philoneism  may  be  nobler  and  more 
humane,  but,  unfortunately,  it  is  only  misoneism 
that  is  true.  Generally  speaking,  every  man  only 
works  in  order  to  avoid  unpleasantness.  One  man 
is  urged  on  by  his  experience  that  hunger  hurts 
him,  the  other  by  the  whip  of  the  slave-driver. 
What  he  fears  is  either  the  punishment  of  circum- 
stances, or  the  punishment  given  by  someone  set 
over  him  {cf.  Spencer,  From  Freedom  to  Restraint, 
p.  8).  Work  is  the  enemy  of  man ;  he  struggles 
with  it  because  he  must  do  so  in  order  to  live ;  his 
life  is  a  continual  struggle  but  not  (as  all  the  An- 
archists from  Proudhon  down  to  Grave  try  to  per- 
suade themselves  and  others)  a  united  struggle  of 
man  against  nature,  but  a  struggle  of  men  one 
against  the  other,  a  murderous,  fratricidal  conflict, 
from  which  in  the  end  only  the  most  suitable  and 
capable  emerges  ("  the  survival  of  the  fittest  "). 
Short-sighted  people  and  one-sided  doctrinaires  can 


256  Anarchism 

never  be  convinced  of  the  fact  that  in  this  brutal 
fact  lies  not  only  the  end  but  also  the  proper  be- 
ginning of  unfeigned  morality.  And  so  too  in  social 
relations.  Conflict,  war,  and  persecution  stand  at 
the  beginning  of  every  civilisation  and  every  social 
development;  but  the  ceaseless  hostilities  of  man 
with  man  have  populated  the  earth  from  pole  to 
pole  with  those  who  are  most  capable,  powerful, 
and  most  fitted  for  evolution ;  we  owe  to  man's 
hatred  and  fear  of  work  the  rich  blessings  of  civilisa- 
tion; and  only  from  the  swamp  of  servitude  can 
spring  the  flower  of  freedom. 

But  we  must  return  once  more  to  our  idealists. 

According  to  the  view  common  to  all  Anarchists, 
the  fault  of  our  present  circumstances,  which  scorn 
freedom  and  equality,  lies  not  in  the  natural  limita- 
tion of  mankind,  but  in  the  limitation  entailed 
upon  him  by  society,  that  is,  by  his  own  faulty 
conceptions  and  ideas.  It  is  therefore  only  a  ques- 
tion of  convincing  men  that  they  hitherto  have 
erred,  that  they  should  see  in  the  State  their  enemy 
and  not  their  protector  and  champion — and  the 
world  is  at  once  turned  upside  down  "  like  an 
omelet,"  society  as  now  constituted  is  annihilated, 
and  Anarchy  is  triumphant.  Anarchists  since  Ba- 
kunin  are  of  the  opinion  that,  in  order  to  reach  this 
end,  there  is  no  need  of  weary  evolution  or  of  an 
education  of  the  human  race  for  Anarchy;  on  the 
contrary,  it  can  be  set  up  at  once,  immediately, 
with  these  same  men ;  it  merely  requires  the  trifling 
circumstance  that  men  should  be  convinced  of 
its  truth.      Therefore   they  despise  every  political 


Anarchism  and  Sociology        257 

means,  and  their  whole  strategy,  not  excepting  the 
propaganda  of  action,  only  aims  at  convincing  men 
of  the  nothingness  of  society  as  such,  and  of  the 
harm  done  by  its  institution.  This  fact  can  only  be 
understood  in  view  of  the  purely  idealist  starting- 
point  from  which  the  Anarchists  proceed.  The 
man  to  whom  society  is  a  fact,  a  reality,  only  recog- 
nises an  evolution  that  excludes  any  sudden  leap, 
and  above  all,  the  leap  into  annihilation. 

A  radical  error  (as  Herbert  Spencer  remarks  in 
the  very  book  which  Ferri  adduces  as  a  proof  of  his 
Anarchist  tendency)  which  prevails  in  the  mode  of 
thought  of  almost  all  political  and  social  parties,  is 
the  delusion  that  there  exist  immediate  and  radical 
remedies  for  the  evils  that  oppress  us.  "  Only  do 
thus,  and  the  evil  will  disappear"  ;  or  "  act  accord- 
ing to  my  method  and  want  will  cease"  ;  or  "  by 
such  and  such  regulations  the  trouble  will  undoubt- 
edly be  removed  " — everywhere  we  meet  such  fan- 
cies, or  modes  of  action  resulting  from  them.  But 
the  foundation  of  them  is  wrong.  You  may  remove 
causes  that  increase  the  evil,  you  may  change  one 
evil  into  another,  and  you  may,  as  frequently  oc- 
curs, even  increase  the  evil  by  trying  to  cure  it :  but 
an  immediate  cure  is  impossible.  In  the  course  of 
centuries  mankind,  owing  to  the  increase  of  num- 
bers, has  been  compelled  to  expand  from  the  original, 
ancient  condition,  wherein  small  groups  of  men  sup- 
ported themselves  upon  the  free  gifts  of  nature,  into 
a  civilised  condition,  in  which  the  things  necessary 
to  support  life  for  such  great  masses  can  only  be 
acquired  by  ceaseless  toil.     The  nature  of  man  in 


258  Anarchism 

this  latter  mode  of  existence  is  very  different  from 
what  it  was  in  the  first  period  ;  and  centuries  of  pain 
have  been  necessary  to  transform  it  sufficiently.  A 
human  constitution  that  is  no  longer  in  harmony 
with  its  environment  is  necessarily  in  a  miserable 
position,  and  a  constitution  inherited  from  primitive 
man  does  not  harmonise  with  the  circumstances  to 
which  those  of  to-day  have  to  adapt  themselves. 
Consequently  it  is  impossible  to  create  immediately 
a  social  condition  that  shall  bring  happiness  to  all. 
A  state  of  society  which  even  to-day  fills  Europe 
with  millions  of  armed  warriors,  eager  for  conquest 
or  thirsting  for  revenge;  which  impels  so-called 
Christian  nations  to  vie  with  one  another  all  over 
the  world  in  piratical  enterprises  without  any  regard 
to  the  rights  of  the  aborigines,  while  thousands  of 
their  priests  and  pastors  watch  them  with  approval ; 
which,  in  intercourse  with  weaker  races,  goes  far  be- 
yond the  primitive  law  of  revenge,  "  a  life  for  a 
life,"  and  for  one  life  demands  seven — such  a  state 
of  human  society,  says  Spencer,  cannot  under  any 
circumstances  be  ripe  for  a  harmonious  communal 
existence.  The  root  of  every  well-ordered  social 
activity  is  the  sense  of  justice,  resting,  on  the  one 
hand,  on  personal  freedom,  and,  on  the  other  on 
the  sanctity  of  similar  freedom  for  others ;  and  this 
sense  of  justice  is  so  far  not  present  in  suflRcient 
quantity.  Therefore  a  further  and  longer  continu- 
ance of  a  social  discipline  is  necessary,  which  de- 
mands from  each  that  he  should  look  after  his  own 
affairs  with  due  regard  to  the  equal  rights  of  others, 
and  insists  that  everyone  shall  enjoy  all  the  pleasures 


Anarchism  and  Sociology        259 

which  naturally  flow  from  his  efforts,  and,  at  the 
same  time,  not  place  upon  the  shoulders  of  others 
the  inconveniences  that  arise  from  the  same  cause, 
in  so  far  as  others  are  not  ready  to  undertake  them. 
And  therefore  it  is  Spencer's  conviction  that  the 
attempts  to  remove  this  form  of  discipline  will  not 
only  fail,  but  will  produce  worse  evils  than  those 
which  it  is  sought  to  avoid. 

We  need  not  discuss  Spencer's  views  further  in  a 
book  about  Anarchism.  But  to  those  representa- 
tives of  so-called  scientific  Socialism,  as  well  as  to 
those  Liberals  who  are  so  ready  to  condemn  as 
"  Anarchist  "  any  inconvenient  critic  of  their  own 
opinions,  we  should  like  to  remark  that  Anarchism 
will  only  be  overcome  by  free  and  fearless  scientific 
treatment,  and  not  by  violent  measures  dictated  by 
stupidity  and  hatred. 


CHAPTER  VIII 


THE   SPREAD   OF  ANARCHISM   IN   EUROPE 


First  Period  (1867-1880)— The  Peace  and  Freedom  League — The 
Democratic  Alliance  and  the  Jurassic  Bund — Union  with  and 
Separation  from  the  "International" — The  Rising  at  Lyons — 
Congress  at  Lausanne — The  Members  of  the  Alliance  in  Italy, 
Spain,  and  Belgium — Second  Period  (from  1880) — The  German 
Socialist  Law — Johann  Most — The  London  Congress — French 
Anarchism  since  1880 — Anarchism  in  Switzerland — The  Geneva 
Congress — Anarchism  in  Germany  and  Austria — Joseph  Penkert 
— Anarchism  in  Belgium  and  England — Organisation  of  the 
Spanish  Anarchists — Italy — Character  of  Modern  Anarchism — 
The  Group — Numerical  Strength  of  the  Anarchism  of  Action. 


T  is  the  custom  to  represent  Bakunin 
as  the  St.  Paul  of  modern  Anarchism. 
It  may  be  so.  The  Anarchism  of 
violence  only  acquired  significance, 
owing  to  later  circumstances  in  which 
Bakunin  had  no  share ;  but  the  kind  of  prelude  of 
the  Anarchist  movement,  which  was  noticeable  at 
the  end  of  the  sixties  and  beginning  of  the  seventies, 
may  certainly  be  attributed  to  the  influence  of 
Bakunin. 
With  the  growth  of  the  organisation  of  the  pro- 

260 


spread  of  Anarchism  in  Europe       261 

letariat  in  its  international  relations  in  the  second 
half  of  the  sixties,  it  was  only  too  readily  under- 
stood that  a  part  of  this  organisation  rested  upon  an 
Anarchist  basis,  especially  as  the  opposition  to  the 
social  democratic  tendency  had  not  yet  been  devel- 
oped in  practice.  Among  workmen  using  the  Ro- 
mance languages,  the  free-collectivist  doctrines  of 
Proudhon  gained  much  ground ;  prominent  labour 
journals,  such  as  the  Geneva  Egalit^,  the  Progrh  du 
Lode,  and  others,  often  represented  these  views, 
and  Switzerland  especially  was  the  chief  country  in 
which  the  working  classes  had  always  inclined  to 
radical  opinions.  We  call  to  mind,  for  example,  the 
union  of  handicraftsmen  of  the  forties,  the  Young 
Germany,  and  the  Lemanbund  (Lake  of  Geneva 
Union)  which  had  been  led  by  Marr  and  Doleke,  to 
however  small  an  extent,  into  an  Anarchist  channel. 
The  same  field  was  open  to  Bakunin  as  suitable  for  his 
operations,  after  he  had  long  enough  sought  for  one. 

After  his  return  from  his  Siberian  exile,  Bakunin 
had  looked  out  for  an  organisation,  by  the  help  of 
which  he  could  translate  his  Anarchist  ideas  into 
action  and  agitation,  the  which  were  the  proper  do- 
main of  his  spirit.  When,  after  restless  wanderings, 
he  came  from  Italy  into  Switzerland,  it  appeared  as 
if  this  wish  were  to  be  fulfilled. 

In  Geneva  there  happened  to  be  a  meeting  of 
the  Peace  Congress,  which  then  had  merely  phil- 
anthropic aims,  and  was  attended  by  members  of  the 
most  diverse  classes  of  society  and  most  different 
nations.  Bakunin  hoped  to  win  over  to  his  ideas 
this  company,  consisting  for  the  most  part  of  ami- 


262  Anarchism 

able  enthusiasts,  doctrinaires  and  congress  haunters, 
and  to  create  in  it  a  background  for  his  own  activity. 
He,  therefore,  appeared  at  the  Congress  and  made 
a  speech  that  was  highly  applauded  in  which  he 
came  to  the  conclusion  that  international  peace  was 
impossible  as  long  as  the  following  principle,  to- 
gether with  all  its  consequences,  was  not  accepted  ; 
namely:  "  Every  nation,  feeble  or  strong,  small  or 
great,  every  province,  every  community  has  the 
absolute  right  to  be  free  and  autonomous,  to  live 
according  to  its  interests  and  private  needs  and  to 
rule  itself ;  and  in  this  right  all  communities  and  all 
nations  have  a  certain  solidarity  to  the  extent  that 
this  principle  cannot  be  violated  for  one  of  them 
without  at  the  same  time  involving  all  the  others  in 
danger.  So  long  as  the  present  centralised  States 
exist,  universal  peace  is  impossible ;  we  must,  there- 
fore, wish  for  their  dismemberment,  in  order  that, 
on  the  ruins  of  these  unities  based  on  force  and 
organised  from  above  downwards  by  despotism  and 
conquest,  free  unities  organised  from  below  upwards 
may  develop  as  a  free  federation  of  communities 
with  provinces,  provinces  with  nations,  and  nations 
with  the  united  States  of  Europe."  In  another 
speech  at  the  same  Congress  he  sums  up  the  princi- 
ples upon  which  alone  peace  and  justice  rest,  in  the 
following: — (i)  "  The  abolition  of  everything  in- 
cluded in  the  term  of  '  the  historic  and  political 
necessity  of  the  State,'  in  the  name  of  any  larger  or 
smaller,  weak  or  strong  population,  as  well  as  in  the 
name  of  all  individuals  who  are  said  to  have  full 
power  to  dispose  of  themselves  in  complete  freedom 


spread  of  Anarchism  in  Europe       263 

independently  of  the  needs  and  claims  of  the  State, 
wherein  this  freedom  ought  only  to  be  limited  by 
the  equal  rights  of  others ;  (2)  Annulling  of  all  the 
permanent  contracts  between  the  individual  and 
the  collective  unity,  associations,  departments  or 
nations;  in  other  words,  every  individual  must  have 
the  right  to  break  any  contract,  even  if  entered  into 
freely ;  (3)  Every  individual,  as  well  as  every  asso- 
ciation, province  and  nation,  must  have  the  right 
to  quit  any  union  or  alliance,  with,  however,  the  ex- 
press condition  that  the  party  thus  leaving  it  must 
not  menace  the  freedom  and  independence  of  the 
State  which  it  has  left  by  alliance  with  a  foreign 
power." 

Although  these  utterances  of  the  wily  agitator 
implied  a  complete  diversion  of  the  views  of  the 
Congress  from  purely  philanthropic  intentions  to 
open  Collectivist  Anarchism,  yet  they  found  sup- 
port in  the  numerous  radical  elements  which  took 
part  in  the  Congress. 

Bakunin,  who  now  settled  in  Switzerland,  was 
elected  a  permanent  member  of  the  Central  Com- 
mittee of  the  newly-founded  "  Peace  and  Freedom 
League,  "with  its  headquarters  in  Bern,  and  he  pre- 
pared for  it  his  "  proposal  "  already  mentioned. 
Bakunin  was  feverishly  active  in  trying  to  lead  the 
League  into  an  Anarchist  channel.  Already  in  the 
session  of  the  Bern  Central  Committee,  he  proposed 
to  the  committee,  with  the  support  of  Ogarjow, 
Jukowsky,  the  Poles  Mrockowski  and  Zagorski,  and 
the  Frenchman  Naquet,  to  accept  a  programme 
similar  to  that  which  he  had  laid  before  the  Geneva 


264  Anarchism 

Congress.  Then  he  carried,  by  the  aid  of  this 
submissive  committee,  a  resolution,  demanding  the 
affiliation  of  the  League  with  the  International 
Union  of  Workers.  But  this  demand  of  the  League 
was  refused  by  the  congress  of  the  "  International  " 
at  Brussels;  but,  already  greatly  compromised  by 
its  position  in  regard  to  the  League,  the  "  Inter- 
national "  still  further  left  the  path  of  safety  when 
Bakunin  recommended  his  Socialist  programme  to 
the  congress  of  the  League  which  sat  at  Bern  in 
1868.  Bakunin  found  himself  in  the  minority,  re- 
tired from  the  congress,  and,  with  a  small  band  of 
faithful  adherents,  including  the  brothers  R^clus, 
Albert  Richard,  Jukowsky,  mentioned  above,  and 
others,  betook  himself  to  Geneva. 

These  faithful  followers  formed  the  nucleus  of  the 
Socialist  Democratic  Alliance  formed  in  Geneva  in 
1868,  the  first  society  with  avowedly  Anarchist  tend- 
encies. We  have  already  quoted  its  official  pro- 
gramme. It  is  an  unimportant  variation  of  Proud- 
hon's  Collectivism.  The ' '  Alliance  ' '  was  a  union  of 
public  societies,  as  far  as  possible  autonomous  fed- 
erations, such  as  the  Jurassic  Bund;  and,  like  the 
"  International,"  it  was  divided  into  a  central  com- 
mittee and  national  bureaus.  But  together  with 
this  division  went  a  secret  organisation.  Bakunin, 
the  pronounced  enemy  of  all  organisations  in  theory, 
created  in  practice  a  secret  society  quite  according 
to  the  rules  of  Carbonarism — a  hierarchy  which  was 
in  total  contradiction  to  the  anti-authority  tenden- 
cies of  the  society.  According  to  the  secret  statutes 
of  the  "  Alliance  "  three  grades  were  recognised^ 


spread  of  Anarchism  in  Europe       265 

(i)  "  The  International  Brethren,"  one  hundred  in 
number,  who  formed  a  kind  of  sacred  college,  and 
were  to  play  the  leading  parts  in  the  soon  expected, 
immediate  social  revolution,  with  Bakunin  at  their 
head.  (2)  "  The  National  Brethren,"  who  were 
organised  by  the  International  Brethren  into  a 
national  association  in  every  country,  but  who  were 
allowed  to  suspect  nothing  of  the  international 
organisation.  (3)  Lastly  came  the  secret  interna- 
tional alliance,  the  pendant  to  the  public  alliance,  op- 
erating through  the  permanent  Central  Committee. 
If  the  "  Alliance  "  made  rapid  progress  in  the  first 
year  of  its  existence,  and  quickly  spread  into 
Switzerland,  the  South  of  France,  and  large  parts  of 
Spain  and  Italy,  and  even  found  adherents  in  Bel- 
gium and  Russia,  this  was  certainly  not  due  to  the 
playing  at  secret  societies  affected  by  the  Inter- 
national Brethren.  It  is  probably  not  a  mistake  to 
see  in  the  growth  of  the  first  Anarchist  organisation 
first  and  foremost  a  natural  reaction  against  the  stiff 
rule  of  the  London  General  Council ;  but  at  the  same 
time  the  Anarchism  of  Proudhon  contained  (contra- 
dictory as  it  may  sound)  in  many  respects  an  ele- 
ment of  moderation,  and  was  far  more  adapted  to 
the  limits  of  the  bourgeois  intellect  than  the  tenden- 
cies of  the  Social  Democracy,  which  demand  a  full 
participation  in  party  interests  and  party  life.  Just 
as  we  find  later,  so  also  we  find  now  at  the  time  of 
the  "Alliance,"  numerous  elements  in  the  Anarchist 
ranks  belonging  to  the  superior  artisan  and  lower 
middle  class.  We  therefore  find  strong  Anarchist 
influences  even  within  the  "  International  "  before 


266  Anarchism 

the  "  Alliance  "  flourished.  Thus  one  of  the  main 
events  of  the  Brussels  Congress  early  in  September, 
1868,  was  a  proposal  of  Albert  Richard,  a  follower 
of  Bakunin,  to  found  a  bank  of  mutual  credit  and 
exchange  quite  after  the  manner  of  Proudhon.  In 
the  discussion  upon  it  prominent  representatives  of 
Anarchist  ideas  took  part,  such  as  Eccarius,  Tolain, 
and  others.  The  Congress,  however,  buried  the 
proposed  statute  in  its  sections — the  last  honor  for 
Proudhon's  much  harassed  project. 

But  in  the  congress  of  the  next  year  the  Anarch- 
ists made  quite  another  kind  of  influence  felt.  In 
the  meantime  the  "  Alliance  "  had  been  absorbed 
in  the  "  International."  A  first  attempt  of  Bakunin 
to  affiliate  the  "  Alliance  "  to  the  great  international 
association  of  workmen,  and  thereby  to  secure  for 
himself  a  leading  part  in  it,  was  a  failure.  The 
General  Council,  in  which  the  influence  of  the  clever 
agitator  was  evidently  feared,  refused  in  December, 
1868,  to  associate  itself  with  the  "  Alliance."  Some 
months  later  the  "  Alliance  "  again  approached  the 
General  Council  upon  the  question  of  affiliation,  and 
declared  itself  ready  to  fulfil  all  its  conditions.  The 
chief  of  these  was  the  dissolution  of  the  "Alliance  " 
as  such  and  the  division  of  its  sections  into  those  of 
the  "  International,  "as  well  as  the  abolition  of  its 
secret  organisation.  Thereupon  the  Bakuninist  sec- 
tions were  in  July,  1869,  declared  to  be  "  Inter- 
national," although  in  London  it  was  never  believed 
that  the  members  of  the  "  Alliance  "  would  keep 
the  conditions.  Not  only  the  Central  Committee  con- 
tinued as  before,  but  also  the  secret  organisation  and 


Spread  of  Anarchism  in  Europe       267 

Bakunin's  leadership.  If  the  amalgamation  of  both 
parties  was  at  length  completed,  it  only  happened 
because  at  this  stage  each  was  in  need  of  the  other, 
and  perhaps  feared  the  other.  But  the  very  origin 
of  the  union,  as  will  readily  be  understood,  did  not 
permit  it  to  work  together  very  harmoniously.  And, 
moreover,  apart  from  the  main  points  of  difference, 
there  were  also  a  series  of  minor  divergencies  of 
opinion,  chiefly  on  the  subject  of  tactics.  The  fol- 
lowers of  Marx  strove  for  greater  centralisation  of  the 
directorate,  the  Bakuninists  more  for  the  autonomy 
of  the  separate  sections.  The  men  of  the  General 
Council  eagerly  urged  the  adoption  of  universal 
suffrage  as  the  most  prominent  means  of  agitation 
for  the  purpose  of  proletariat  emancipation ;  Bakunin 
entirely  rejected  any  political  action,  including  the 
exercise  of  the  suffrage,  since,  in  his  opinion,  this 
would  only  become  an  instrument  of  reaction,  and 
since  the  workers  could  only  use  their  rights  by 
force  and  not  votes.  It  will  be  easily  understood 
that  the  result  of  such  differences  of  opinion  was  a 
sharp  divergence  inside  the  "  International  "  be- 
tween the  ' '  Marxists  ' '  and  '  *  Bakuninists  ' ' — a  diver- 
gence that  became  irremediable  at  the  Basle  Congress 
of  1869.  At  this  Congress  the  "  Alliance  "  suc- 
ceeded, if  not  in  securing  a  decisive  majority,  yet  in 
obtaining  sufficient  influence  to  give  the  Congress  a 
decidedly  Anarchist  character. 

As  the  first  item  on  the  programme,  the  Belgian 
Proudhonist,  De  Paepe,  proposed  to  the  Congress  to 
declare  (i)  that  society  had  the  right  to  abolish  in- 
dividual ownership  in  the  land,  and  give  it  back  to 


268  Anarchism 

the  community;  (2)  that  it  was  necessary  to  make 
the  land  common  property.  Albert  Richard  vehe- 
mently opposed  individual  ownership  as  the  source 
of  all  social  inequalities  and  all  poverty.  "  It  arose 
from  force  and  from  unlawful  seizure,  and  it  must 
disappear :  and  property  in  land  must  be  regulated 
by  the  federally  organised  communes."  Bakunin 
himself  supported  De  Paepe's  proposal ;  but  it  is  not 
hard  to  understand  that  opposition  made  itself  felt 
in  the  Anarchist  ranks.  Several  pronounced  An- 
archists, especially  Murat  and  Tolain,  supported  in- 
dividual property  with  great  decision  and  warmth. 
Nevertheless  De  Paepe's  Collectivist  proposal  was 
accepted  by  fifty-four  (or  fifty-three)  votes  to  four. 

But  the  Bakuninists  did  not  gain  the  same  success 
in  the  next  question,  concerning  the  right  of  inherit- 
ance. This  was  a  question  quite  characteristic  of 
Bakunin.     The  proposal  ran : 

"  In  consideration  of  the  fact  that  inheritance  as 
an  inseparable  element  in  individual  ownership  con- 
tributes to  the  alienation  of  property  in  land  and  of 
social  riches  for  the  benefit  of  the  few  and  the  hurt 
of  the  majority ;  that  consequently  inheritance  hin- 
ders land  and  social  wealth  from  becoming  common 
property :  that,  on  the  other  hand,  inheritance,  how- 
ever limited  its  operation  may  be,  forms  a  privi- 
lege, the  greater  or  lesser  importance  of  which  does 
not  remove  injustice,  and  continually  threatens 
social  rights;  that,  further,  inheritance,  whether  it 
appears  either  in  politics  or  economics,  forms  an 
essential  element  in  all  inequalities,  because  it  hin- 
ders the  individual  having  the  same  means  of  moral 


Spread  of  Anarchism  in  Europe       269 

and  material  development ;  considering,  finally,  that 
the  Congress  has  pronounced  in  favour  of  collective 
property  in  land,  and  that  this  declaration  would  be 
illogical  if  it  were  not  strengthened  by  this  following 
declaration :  the  Congress  recognises  that  inheritance 
must  be  completely  and  absolutely  abolished,  and 
its  abolition  is  one  of  the  most  necessary  conditions 
of  the  emancipation  of  labour." 

One  might  have  believed  that  a  congress  which 
had  calmly  agreed  to  the  abolition  of  individual 
property  in  land  could  have  no  objection  to  make  to 
the  abolition  of  such  an  "  unequal  "  and  "  feudal  " 
institution  as  inheritance.  But  it  appears  that  it 
was  desired  to  let  Bakunin  (whose  hobby  the  strug- 
gle against  inheritance  was  well  known  to  be)  plainly 
see  that  the  Congress  wished  to  have  none  of  him, 
although  they  had  not  ventured  to  oppose  the  views 
of  his  adherents  upon  the  far  more  important  ques- 
tion. The  proposal  only  received  thirty-two  votes  for 
it,  twenty-three  against  it,  and  seventeen  delegates 
refrained  from  voting.  Therefore  the  resolution  was 
lost,  since  it  could  not  obtain  a  decisive  majority. 

This  procedure  of  the  Basle  Congress  was  calcu- 
lated to  embitter  both  parties.  Open  rupture  could 
not  be  long  delayed.  Already,  at  the  Romance 
Congress*  at  Chaux-de-Fonds  on  April  4,  1870,  the 
admission  of  the  Bakuninist  sections  had  raised  a 

'  The  first  groups  of  the  "  International  "  in  the  Romance-speaking 
portions  of  Switzerland  had  increased  so  quickly  that  at  a  congress  in 
Geneva  in  1869  they  united  themselves  into  a  league  of  their  own,  the 
"Romance  Federation,"  in  harmony  with  the  "  International,"  to 
which  members  of  the  "  Alliance"  and  Marxists  belonged  in  almost 
equal  numbers. 


2  70  Anarchism 

veritable  storm — twenty-one  delegates  voting  for 
the  admission,  and  eighteen  against  it,  and  the  latter 
withdrew  immediately  from  the  Congress  in  conse- 
quence of  the  decision.  Nevertheless,  at  this  Con- 
gress Bakunin's  views  practically  prevailed,  for  the 
Congress  declared  in  favour  of  taking  part  in  politics, 
and  putting  up  working-men  candidates  at  elections 
as  a  means  of  agitation. 

The  day  on  which  the  Third  Republic  was  pro- 
claimed in  Paris  (the  4th  September,  1870)  was  con- 
sidered by  the  "  Alliance  "  to  be  the  right  moment 
"  to  unchain  the  hydra  of  Revolution."  This  was 
first  done  in  Switzerland,  where  manifestoes  were 
issued  calling  to  the  formation  of  a  free  corps  against 
the  Prussians.  The  manifestoes  were  seized,  and 
the  head  of  the  revolutionary  hydra  cut  off,  as  far  as 
Switzerland  was  concerned.  On  September  28th, 
Bakunin  tried  to  organise  a  riot  at  Lyons.  Albert 
Richard,  Bastelica,  and  Gaspard  Blanc  began  it ;  the 
mob  took  possession  of  the  Town  Hall;  Bakunin 
installed  himself  there,  and  decreed  "  abolition  of 
the  State."  He  had  perhaps  hoped  that  the  ex- 
ample of  Lyons  would  encourage  other  cities  in  the 
circumstances  then  prevailing,  and  these  would  like- 
wise declare  themselves  to  be  free  communes,  and 
the  State  to  be  abolished.  But  the  State, — as  the 
opponents  of  the  "  Alliance"  maliciously  said, — in 
the  shape  of  two  companies  of  the  National  Guard, 
found  a  way  into  Lyons  through  a  gate  which  the 
rioters  had  forgotten  to  watch,  swept  the  Anarchists 
out  of  the  Town  Hall,  and  caused  Bakunin  to  seek 
his  way  back  to  Geneva  in  great  haste. 


Spread  of  Anarchism  in  Europe       271 

This  intermezzo,  the  only  historical  moment  which 
the  "  Alliance  "  had,  did  not,  of  course,  contribute 
to  strengthen  any  friendship  between  the  Bakuninists 
and  Marxists.  The  latter  had  a  suitable  excuse  for 
shaking  off  Bakunin,  and  making  the  Anarchists 
subservient  to  them.  In  the  conference  at  London 
(September,  1871)  the  sections  of  the  Jura  were 
recommended  to  join  the  "  Romance  Union,"  and 
in  case  this  was  not  done,  the  conference  determined 
the  mountain  sections  should  unite  into  the  Jurassic 
Federation.  The  conference  passed  a  severe  reso- 
lution against  Bakunin's  tactics,  and  a  resolution 
against  Netschajew's  proceedings  was  also  really 
directed  against  the  leader  of  the  "  Alliance." 

Bakunin  was  right  in  taking  this  as  a  declaration 
of  war,  and  his  followers  accepted  the  challenge. 
On  November  12,  1871,  the  Jura  sections  met  at  a 
congress  in  Souvillier,  in  which  they  certainly  ac- 
cepted the  name  "  Jurassic  Union,"  but  declared 
the  "  Romance  Union  "  to  be  dissolved;  appealed 
against  the  decisions  of  the  London  Conference  as 
well  as  against  their  legality,  and  appealed  to  a  gen- 
eral congress,  to  be  called  immediately. 

These  endless  disputes  came  to  a  climax  at  the 
congress  held  at  The  Hague  in  1872,  when  Bakunin 
was  excluded  from  the  "  International";  where- 
upon the  Anarchist  sections  finally  separated  from 
the  Social  Democrats,  and  in  the  same  year  called 
an  "  International  Labour  Congress  "  at  St.  Imier. 
Here  a  provisional  union  of  "  Anti-Authority  So- 
cialists "  was  resolved  upon,  and  it  was  decided  (i) 
that  the  annihilation  of  every  political  power  was 


272  Anarchism 

the  first  duty  of  the  proletariat;  (2)  that  every 
organisation  of  the  political  power,  both  provisory 
and  revolutionary,  was  merely  a  delusion,  and  was 
as  dangerous  for  the  proletariat  as  any  of  the  Gov- 
ernments now  existing.  In  the  following  year, 
1873,  another  congress  took  place  at  Geneva,  which 
founded  a  new  "  International,"  which  placed  all 
power  completely  in  the  hands  of  the  sections,  while 
the  "  Bureau  "  only  was  to  serve  as  a  link  between 
the  autonomous  unions,  and  to  give  information. 

This  first  international  Anarchist  organisation 
never  became  of  practical  importance;  only  the 
"  Jurassic  Union  "  formed  for  almost  ten  years  a 
much  feared  centre  of  Anarchism  in  Romance- 
speaking  Switzerland  and  Southern  France.  Indeed 
it  became  the  cradle  of  the  "  Anarchism  of  action  " 
generally.  "  The  Jura  Federation,"  '  wrote  Kro- 
potkin,  "  has  played  a  most  important  part  in  the 
development  of  the  revolutionary  idea.  If,  in 
speaking  of  Anarchy  to-day,  we  can  say  that  there 
are  three  thousand  Anarchists  in  Lyons,  and  five 
thousand  in  the  valley  of  the  Rhone,  and  several 
thousands  in  the  South,  that  is  the  work  mainly  of 
the  Jura  Federation.  Indeed  I  must  ask,  How  was 
this  possible  ?  Is  Anarchy  in  Europe  only  ten  years 
old  ?  Of  course  the  Zeitgeist  has  carried  us  along 
with  it;  but  this  was  first  openly  manifest  in  a 
group,  the  Jura  Federation,  which  thus  must  gain 
credit  for  it."  The  Jurassic  Union  was  in  fact  the 
Anarchist  party.  The  head  and  soul  of  this  union 
was  the  Bakuninist,  Paul  Brousse,  a  zealous  and  reck- 

>  R^volte,  July  8,  1862. 


Spread  of  Anarchism  in  Europe       273 

less  Anarchist  and  clever  journalist,  who  in  his  paper 
Avantgarde  was  one  of  the  first  to  preach  the  "propa- 
ganda of  action."  In  December,  1878,  this  paper 
was  suppressed  by  the  Swiss  Government  because  it 
had  approved  the  attempts  of  Hodel  and  Nobeling. 
Brousse  himself  was  arrested  and  condemned  to  two 
months'  imprisonment  and  ten  years'  banishment, 
but  after  undergoing  his  imprisonment  he  completely 
gave  up  Anarchism.  Kropotkin,  who  had  already 
helped  him  with  the  Avantgarde,  took  his  place, 
and  founded  in  Geneva  the  Revolte,  directing  with 
a  feverish  activity  the  work  originally  begun  by 
Bakunin  into  new  channels,  and  afterwards  doing 
so  from  London. 

In  the  year  1876  the  French  Anarchists  at  the 
congress  at  Lausanne  had  finally  separated  them- 
selves from  every  party,  by  declaring  the  Parisian 
Commune  to  be  only  another  form  of  government 
by  authority.  The  congress  of  1878  at  Freiburg 
was  of  similar  importance.  Elisee  Reclus  moved 
for  the  appointment  of  a  commission,  which  was  to 
answer  the  following  questions:  (i)  "  Why  we  are 
revolutionaries";  (2)  "  Why  we  are  Anarchists"; 
(3)  "  Why  we  are  Collectivists. "  "  We  are  revolu- 
tionaries," said  Reclus,  "  because  we  desire  justice. 
Progress  has  never  been  marked  by  mere  peaceful 
development ;  it  has  always  been  called  forth  by  a 
sudden  resolution.  We  are  Anarchists,  and  as  such 
recognise  no  master.  Morality  resides  only  in  free- 
dom. We  are  international  Collectivists,  because  we 
perceive  that  an  existence  without  social  grouping  is 
impossible."     The  Congress  accepted  Reclus's  mo- 


2  74  Anarchism 

tion,  and  decided  (i)  in  favour  of  the  general  appro- 
priation of  social  wealth ;  (2)  for  the  abolition  of  the 
State  in  any  form,  even  in  that  of  a  so-called  central 
point  of  public  administration.  Further,  the  Con- 
gress declared  in  favour  of  the  propaganda  of  theory, 
of  insurrectionary  and  revolutionary  activity,  and 
against  universal  suffrage,  since  this  was  not  adapted 
to  secure  the  sovereignty  of  the  multitude. 

At  a  congress  held  in  the  following  year  (1879) 
at  Chaux-de-Fonds,  Kropotkin  definitely  urged  the 
policy  of  the  propaganda  of  action,  and  the  Anarch- 
ist Labour  Congress  at  Marseilles  in  the  same  year 
declared  itself  unhesitatingly  in  favour  of  universal 
expropriation.  At  the  next  Swiss  Anarchist  Con- 
gress in  1880  Kropotkin  finally  demanded  the  aboli- 
tion of  the  term  "  Collectivism  "  which  had  hitherto 
been  retained,  and  proposed  to  replace  it  by  the 
term  "  Anarchist  Communism." 

Here  we  can  see,  even  upon  a  point  of  theory,  the 
deep  divergence  which  was  proceeding  at  this  time. 
Hitherto  Anarchism — and  at  least  in  this  first  period 
of  its  development  we  can  speak  of  a  party — has 
proceeded  quite  on  the  lines  of  Proudhon's  Collec- 
tivism. Its  main  representative  is  the  "  Alliance," 
or  rather  Michael  Bakunin,  and  after  him  the  Juras- 
sic Federation.  This  period  is,  with  the  exception 
of  a  few  revolutionary  attempts,  free  from  outrage 
and  crime.  But  all  this  was  changed  at  the  London 
Congress.  Before  speaking  of  this,  however,  we 
must  just  glance  at  the  branches  of  the  "  Alliance  " 
in  Spain,  Italy,  and  elsewhere. 

The  Italian  peninsula  has  always  been  one  of  the 


Spread  of  Anarchism  in  Europe      275 

chief  centres  of  Anarchism.  It  has  been  said  that 
this  is  the  fault  of  the  weakness  and  deficiency  of 
the  police,  although  the  Italian  Government  repeat- 
edly, both  in  1866  and  1876,  and  again  recently,  has 
required  and  supported  the  strengthening  of  the  ex- 
ecutive power  in  every  possible  way  against  certain 
phenomena  of  political  and  social  passion.  The 
police  alone,  whether  zealous  or  lax,  is  here,  as 
elsewhere,  only  the  most  subordinate  factor  in  his- 
tory. But  if  we  remember  the  proletariat  that 
swarms  in  the  numerous  cities  of  Italy,  in  its  eco- 
nomic misery  and  moral  degradation ;  if  we  consider 
the  peculiar  tendency  of  this  nation  towards  politi- 
cal crime  and  the  paraphernalia  of  secret  conspiracy ; 
if  we  remember  the  days  of  the  Carbonari,  the  Black 
Brothers,  the  Acoltellatori,  and  others, — we  shall 
find  in  Italy,  quite  apart  from  the  police  and  their 
work,  sufificient  other  reasons  for  the  growth  of 
Anarchism. 

During  the  war  of  independence,  revolutionary 
literature  in  general,  and  especially  the  works  of 
Herzen  and  Michael  Bakunin,  had  a  great  sale 
among  the  younger  generation,  and  so  it  came  to 
pass  that  the  idea  of  nationalism  was  imperceptibly 
fostered  by  Socialist  and  Nihilist  influences.  The 
leading  part  taken  by  a  number  of  Italian  revolu- 
tionaries, especially  Cipriani, — afterwards  the  leader 
of  the  Apennine  Anarchists, — in  the  Commune  of 
1 87 1,  contributed  very  considerably  to  promote 
Socialist  demagogy  in  the  revolutionary  centres  of 
Italy,  in  the  Romagna,  and  the  Marches.  Closer  con- 
tact with  Bakunin  proved  to  be  the  decisive  touch. 


276  Anarchism 

In  those  memorable  days  when  the  "  Interna- 
tional "  separated  into  two  heterogeneous  parts, 
we  already  find  the  majority  of  the  Italian  Socialists 
adopting  the  standpoint  of  Bakunin  ;  indeed  the 
Italians,  even  before  the  Hague  Congress,  took  sides 
in  favour  of  Bakunin  against  the  "  Authority-Com- 
munists "  of  Marx.  This  first  Anarchist  movement 
became  no  more  important  in  Italy  than  elsewhere, 
and  an  attempt  at  riot  in  April,  1877,  near  Bene- 
vento,  headed  by  Cafiero  and  Malatesta,  gave  an 
impression  of  childishness  and  comicality  rather 
than  of  menace.  It  was  put  down  by  a  handful  of 
soldiers ;  Malatesta  and  Cafiero  were  taken  prisoners, 
but  set  free.  The  severe  repressive  measures  after- 
wards adopted  by  the  Government  kept  Anarchism 
down  for  some  time. 

In  Spain,  also,  at  the  beginning  of  the  seventies, 
there  was — as  was  the  case  with  all  the  Romance 
countries — a  strong  Bakuninist  party,  which  was  said 
to  have  amounted  to  50,000  men  in  1873.  During 
the  Federalist  risings  the  Anarchists  made  common 
cause  with  the  Intransigeants,  and  succeeded  in 
taking  possession  of  several  cities  for  a  short  time. 
Their  successes,  however,  did  not  last  long,  and 
they  were  only  able  to  hold  out  till  1874  in  New 
Carthagena,  where  they  had  finally  to  surrender 
after  a  regular  siege  by  the  Government  troops. 
The  Anarchist  societies  and  newspapers  were  sup- 
pressed, and  the  severest  measures  taken  against 
Anarchists,  which  only  roused  them  to  the  most 
sanguinary  form  of  propaganda.  The  Anarchists 
declared  that  if  they  were  to  be  treated  as  wild 


Spread  of  Anarchism  in  Europe      277 

beasts,  they  would  act  as  such,  and  cause  death  and 
destruction  to  the  Government  and  to  any  existing 
form  of  society  at  any  time,  in  any  place,  and  by 
any  means. 

In  Belgium  about  this  period  there  was  also  a 
great  increase  of  Proudhonish  Anarchism,  which, 
later  on,  as  in  Switzerland,  Italy,  and  Spain,  at- 
tached itself  to  Bakunin,  and  at  the  congress  at  The 
Hague  formed  the  centre  of  the  opposition  to  the 
Marxists.  The  rapid  growth  of  Social  Democracy 
in  Belgium  during  the  second  half  of  the  seventies 
almost  extinguished  Anarchism  there. 

If  we  wish  to  characterise  briefly  this  first  period 
of  the  Anarchism  of  action,  a  period  terminated  de- 
cisively by  the  year  1880,  we  should  define  it  as  the 
process  of  separation  between  the  Socialist  and  the 
Anarchist  tendency.  Karl  Marx,  who  had  already 
come  into  opposition  with  the  "  Father  of  Anarch- 
ism," and  had  attacked  his  "  philosophy  of  want  " 
with  the  bitter  criticism  of  "  want  of  philosophy," 
noted  the  far  greater  danger  which  threatened 
Socialism  from  the  clever  agitator  Bakunin,  and 
entered  into  a  life-and-death  struggle  against  him. 
Although  there  was  a  large  personal  element  in 
this  conflict,  it  was  really  more  than  a  personal 
struggle  between  two  opponents.  There  was  a  deep 
division  among  the  proletariat  themselves,  separat- 
ing them — unconsciously  for  the  most  part — into 
two  great  and  irreconcilable  camps;  the  first  battle 
had  been  fought,  and  the  result  was  decidedly  not 
in  favour  of  the  Anarchists.     Towards  the  end  of 


278  Anarchism 

the  seventies  we  notice  everywhere,  except  perhaps 
in  France,  where  social  parties  were  strongly  marked, 
a  remarkable  retrogression  in  Anarchism.  It  ap- 
peared as  if,  after  playing  the  part  of  an  episode,  it 
was  to  disappear  from  the  political  stage. 

In  view  of  the  fact  that  the  history  both  of  practi- 
cal and  theoretical  Anarchism  is  a  history  pure  and 
simple  of  the  most  violent  opposition  to  Social 
Democracy  inside  its  own  camp,  it  shows  both 
ignorance  and  unfairness  to  make  Socialists  bear  the 
blame  of  Anarchist  propaganda.  It  is  undeniable 
that  Anarchism  can  only  flourish  where  Socialism  is 
generally  prevalent.  But  that  does  not  imply  much, 
and  no  special  wisdom  is  needed  to  find  the  reason 
for  this  phenomenon.  But  that  is  all.  It  is  just  as 
indisputable  a  fact,  that  Anarchism"  only  flourishes 
where  Social  Democracy  is  feeble,  divided,  and  weak, 
and  that  it  always  is  unsuccessful  in  its  efforts  where 
the  Social  Democratic  party  is  strong  and  united,  as 
in  Germany.  All  attempts  to  plant  Anarchism  in 
Germany  have  failed,  not  because  of  the  preventive 
and  repressive  measures  of  the  Government,  but 
because  of  the  strength  of  the  party  of  Social  Demo- 
cracy. In  England  where  there  is  a  Socialist  move- 
ment among  the  working  classes,  with  a  definite 
aim,  Anarchism  has  remained  merely  an  imported 
article ;  in  Austria  both  parties  have  for  years  fought 
fiercely,  and  in  proportion  as  one  rises  the  other 
sinks.  In  Italy  there  are  notorious  centres  of  the 
Anarchism  of  action  in  Leghorn,  Lugo,  Forli,  Rome, 
and  Sicily.  In  Milan  and  Turin,  where  Social 
Democracy   has  established  itself  on  the  German 


spread  of  Anarchism  in  Europe       279 

pattern,  and  has  great  influence  among  the  lower 
classes,  there  are  hardly  any  "Anarchists  of  action." 
On  the  other  hand,  France,  where  the  Socialist 
party  by  being  broken  up  into  numerous  small  frag- 
ments is  condemned  to  lose  its  influence,  is  the  head- 
quarters of  Anarchism.  But  anyone  who  is  not 
satisfied  with  these  facts  need  only  look  at  the 
causes  of  the  most  significant  turning-points  which 
the  history  of  modern  Anarchism  has  to  offer,  the 
London  Congress  of  1881,  when  the  Anarchism  of 
action  raised  its  Gorgon  head,  officially  adopted  the 
programme  of  the  propaganda  of  action,  when  the 
system  of  groups  in  every  country  was  accepted, 
and  that  era  of  outrages  began  which,  instead  of 
promoting  the  work  of  the  self-improvement  of 
society,  rather  alienates  it  under  the  pressure  of  a 
dreadful  terrorism.  To-day  a  small  group,  which 
in  number  hardly  equals  a  single  one  of  the  famous 
twelve  nationalities  of  Austria,  has  succeeded  in 
making  the  whole  world  talk  of  them,  while  the 
parliaments  of  every  nation  pass  their  laws  with 
reference  to  this  group,  and  often  in  aiming  their 
blows  against  Anarchists  strike  those  who  are 
merely  followers  of  a  natural  evolution. 

And,  it  may  be  asked.  On  what  day  or  by  what 
act  was  so  fortunate  a  chance  offered  to  Anarchism  ? 
The  occasion  was  the  German  Socialist  law.  This 
fact  is  indisputable. 

It  was  only  in  the  natural  order  of  things  that,  in 
1878,  when  the  German  policy  of  force  happened 
partially  to  paralyse  the  legal  agitation  of  the  Social 
Democrats  by  exceptional  legislation,  a  radical  group 


28o  Anarchism 

arose  among  the  Socialist  working  classes  which,  led 
by  the  agitator  Most,  always  an  extremist,  and  Has- 
selmann,  drew  from  these  circumstances  the  lesson 
that  now,  being  excluded  from  constitutional  agita- 
tion, they  must  devote  all  their  powers  to  prepare  for 
revolution.  This  preparation.  Most  declared,  should 
consist  in  the  arming  of  all  Socialists,  energetic  secret 
agitation  to  excite  the  masses,  and,  above  all,  revo- 
lutionary acts  and  outrages.  The  agitation  was  to 
be  carried  on  by  quite  small  groups  of  at  most  five 
men.  Like  Bakunin,  Most,  who,  on  being  expelled 
from  Berlin  early  in  1879,  emigrated  to  London, 
where  he  founded  his  journal  Freedom,  had  gone  on 
in  advance  of  the  general  Socialist  movement,  and 
for  a  time  proceeded  with  it ;  but,  like  Bakunin  too, 
he  had  been  disowned  and  violently  attacked  by  the 
Social  Democratic  party,  when  he  showed  the  An- 
archist in  him  so  openly.  The  immediate  conse- 
quence of  Most  and  Hasselmann's  programme  was 
the  formal  expulsion  of  both  agitators  from  the 
party  by  the  secret  congress  at  Wyden,  near  Ossin- 
gen,  in  Switzerland. 

But  just  because  of  the  disposition  engendered  by 
the  Socialist  law,  this  decision  was  quite  powerless 
to  stifle  the  Most  and  Hasselmann  movement.  On 
the  contrary,  Most's  following  grew  from  day  to 
day,  aided  in  no  small  degree  by  his  paper  Freedom, 
written  in  the  glowing  language  of  the  demagogue, 
and  now  calling  itself  openly  an  "  Anarchist  organ." 
When  Most  came  to  London,  he  soon  took  the  lead 
of  the  "  Social  Democratic  Working  Men's  Club," 
then  a  thousand  strong,  the  majority  of  which,  after 


spread  of  Anarchism  in  Europe       281 

the  separation  of  the  more  moderate  members  who 
did  not  like  the  new  programme,  went  over  to 
Host's  side.  From  these  adherents  Most  formed 
an  organisation  of  the  "  United  Socialists,"  in  which 
the  "  International  "  was  to  be  revived  again  upon 
the  most  radical  basis.  The  seat  of  this  organisa- 
tion was  to  be  London,  and  from  thence  a  Central 
Committee  of  seven  persons  was  to  look  after  the 
linking  together  of  revolutionary  societies  abroad. 
Side  by  side  with  this  public  organisation,  Most 
formed  a  secret  "  Propagandist  Club,"  to  carry  on 
an  international  revolutionary  agitation  and  to  pre- 
pare directly  for  the  general  revolution  which  Most 
thought  was  near  at  hand.  For  this  purpose  a  com- 
mittee was  to  be  formed  in  every  country  in  order 
to  form  groups  after  the  Nihilist  pattern,  and  at  the 
proper  time  to  take  the  lead  of  the  movement.  The 
activity  of  all  these  national  organisations  was  to  be 
united  in  the  Central  Committee  in  London,  which 
was  an  international  body.  The  organ  of  the 
organisation  was  to  be  the  Freedom.  The  following 
of  this  new  movement  grew  rapidly  in  every  country, 
and  already  in  1881  a  great  demonstration  of  Most's 
ideas  took  place  at  the  memorable  International 
Revolutionary  Congress  in  London,  the  holding  of 
which  was  mainly  due  to  the  initiative  of  Most  and 
the  well-known  Nihilist,  Hartmann. 

Already,  in  April,  1881,  a  preliminary  congress 
had  been  held  in  Paris,  at  which  the  procedure  of 
the  "parliamentary  Socialists"  had  been  rejected, 
since  only  a  social  revolution  was  regarded  as  a 
remedy ;  in  the  struggle  against  present-day  society 


282  Anarchism 

all  and  any  means  were  looked  upon  as  right  and 
justifiable;  and  in  view  of  this  the  distribution  of 
leaflets,  the  sending  of  emissaries,  and  the  use  of 
explosives  were  recommended.  A  German  living  in 
London  had  proposed  an  amendment  involving  the 
forcible  removal  of  all  potentates  after  the  man- 
ner of  the  assassination  of  the  Russian  Czar,  but 
this  was  rejected  as  "  at  present  not  yet  suitable." 
The  congress  following  this  preliminary  one  took 
place  in  London  on  July  14  to  19,  1881,  and  was 
attended  by  about  forty  delegates,  the  representa- 
tives of  several  hundred  groups. 

"  The  revolutionaries  of  all  countries  are  uniting 
into  an  '  International  Social  Revolutionary  Work- 
ing Men's  Association  '  for  the  purpose  of  a  social 
revolution.  The  headquarters  of  the  Association  is 
at  London,  and  sub-committees  are  formed  in  Paris, 
Geneva,  and  New  York.  In  every  place  where  like- 
minded  supporters  exist,  sections  and  an  executive 
committee  of  three  persons  are  to  be  formed.  The 
committees  of  a  country  are  to  keep  up  with  one 
another,  and  with  the  Central  Committee,  regu- 
lar communication  by  means  of  continual  reports 
and  information,  and  have  to  collect  money  for  the 
purchase  of  poison  and  weapons,  as  well  as  to  find 
places  suitable  for  laying  mines,  and  so  on.  To 
attain  the  proposed  end,  the  annihilation  of  all 
rulers,  ministers  of  State,  nobility,  the  clergy,  the 
most  prominent  capitalists,  and  other  exploiters, 
any  means  are  permissible,  and  therefore  great  at- 
tention should  be  given  specially  to  the  study  of 
chemistry  and  the  preparation  of  explosives,  as  be- 


Spread  of  Anarchism  in  Europe       283 

ing  the  most  important  weapons.  Together  with 
the  chief  committee  in  London  there  will  also  be 
established  an  executive  committee  of  international 
composition  and  an  information  bureau,  whose  duty 
is  to  carry  out  the  decisions  of  the  chief  committee 
and  to  conduct  correspondence." 

This  Congress  and  the  decisions  passed  thereat 
had  very  far-reaching  and  fateful  consequences  for 
the  development  of  the  Anarchism  of  action.  The 
executive  committee  set  to  work  at  once,  and 
sought  to  carry  out  every  point  of  the  proposed 
programme,  but  especially  to  utilise  for  purposes  of 
demonstration  and  for  feverish  agitation  every  revo- 
lutionary movement  of  whatever  origin  or  tendency 
it  might  be,  whether  proceeding  from  Russian 
Nihilism  or  Irish  Fenianism.  How  successful  their 
activity  was,  was  proved  only  too  well  by  now  un- 
ceasing outrages  in  every  country. 

The  London  Congress  operated  as  a  beacon  of 
fire;  scarcely  had  it  uttered  its  terrible  concluding 
words  when  it  found  in  all  parts  of  Europe  an  echo 
multiplied  a  thousand-fold.  Anarchism,  which  was 
thought  to  be  dead,  celebrated  a  dread  resurrection, 
and  in  places  where  it  had  never  existed  it  suddenly 
raised  its  Gorgon  head  aloft.  The  reason  is  mainly 
to  be  found  in  the  fact  that  all  the  numerous  radical- 
social  elements  which  had  not  agreed  with  the  tactics 
of  the  Social  Democrats  in  view  of  Government  pro- 
secutions, now  adopted  Host's  programme  without 
asking  in  the  least  what  the  Anarchist  theory  was 
or  whether  they  believed  in  it.  The  two  catchwords 
of  the  Anarchism  of  action,  Communism  and  An- 


284  Anarchism 

archy,  did  not  fail  to  have  their  usual  effect  upon 
the  most  radical  and  confused  elements  of  discon- 
tent. Communism  is,  to  speak  plainly,  only  "  the 
absolute  average  " ;  and  as  there  are  large  numbers 
of  men  who  fall  even  below  the  average  both  men- 
tally, morally,  and  materially.  Communism  can  have 
at  any  time  nothing  terrible  in  it  for  these  people, 
and  even  represents  to  them  a  highly  desirable  Eldo- 
rado. Collectivism  is  the  impractical  invention  of 
a  man  of  genius,  that  may  be  compared  to  a  me- 
chanical invention  that  consists  of  so  many  screws, 
wheels,  and  springs  that  it  never  can  be  set  going. 
But  Communism  seems  an  easy  expedient  for  the 
average  man ;  it  can  always  reckon  upon  a  public ; 
certainly  one  is  always  to  be  found.  By  Anarchy, 
of  course,  the  mob  understands  always  only  its  own 
dictatorship,  and  this  remedy,  too,  always  has  a 
great  attraction  for  the  uneducated  masses.  But  as 
regards  the  tactics  commended  by  the  London  Con- 
gress, it  was  completely  adapted  to  the  mental  ca- 
pacities of  the  representatives  of  "  darkest  Europe." 
The  "  new  movement  "  could  thus  count  upon  suc- 
cess, especially  as  skilful  agitators  like  Kropotkin, 
Most,  Penkert,  Gautier,  and  others  devoted  to  it  all 
their  remarkable  powers.  This  success  was  gained 
with  surprising  rapidity. 

In  Paris  in  1880  Anarchism  was  almost  extin- 
guished ;  its  organ,  the  Revolution  Sociale,  had  to 
cease  when  Andrieux,  the  Prefect  of  Police,  who  had 
supplied  it  with  money,  left  his  appointment,  and 
supplies  were  stopped.  The  party  was  disorganised 
both  in  Paris  and  the  provinces,  and  the  Jurassic 


spread  of  Anarchism  in  Europe       285 

Federation  was  nearly  extinct.  Immediately  after 
the  London  Congress,  the  "  Revolutionary  Inter- 
national League  ' '  was  established,  an  active  inter- 
communication was  kept  up  with  London,  and  an 
eager  agitation  was  developed.  In  consequence, 
however,  of  the  strong  opposition  of  the  other 
Socialists,  this  League  remained  weak,  and  scarcely 
numbered  a  hundred  members.  On  the  other  hand, 
Anarchism  increased  all  the  more  in  the  great  in- 
dustrial centres  of  the  provinces.  In  the  South 
were  founded  the  Federation  Lyonnaise  and  the  Fed- 
eration Stephanoise,  which,  especially  after  Kro- 
potkin  took  over  the  leadership  and  cleverly  took 
advantage  of  the  discords  prevailing  among  other 
Socialists  {e.  g.,  at  the  congress  of  St.  Etienne), 
made  astonishing  progress  in  Lyons,  the  main 
centre  of  the  movement,  St,  Etienne,  Roanne, 
Narbonne,  Nimes,  Bordeaux,  and  other  places.  Ac- 
cording to  Kropotkin,  these  unions  already  num- 
bered in  a  year's  time  8ocxd  members.  In  Lyons 
they  possessed  an  organ,  which,  like  Most's  Free- 
dom, appeared  under  all  kinds  of  titles  in  order  to 
elude  the  police,  and  which  openly  advocated  out- 
rages and  gave  recipes  for  the  manufacture  of  ex- 
plosives. 

The  consequences  of  this  unchecked  agitation 
soon  became  visible.  The  first  opportunity  was 
given  by  the  great  strikes  which  broke  out  at  the 
beginning  of  1882  in  Roanne,  Bezi^res,  Moli^res, 
and  other  industrial  centres  of  Southern  France, 
and  were  used  by  the  Anarchists  for  their  own  pur- 
poses.    A  workman,  Fournier,  who  shot  his  em- 


286  Anarchism 

ployer  in  the  open  street,  was  honoured  in  Lyons  by 
the  summoning  of  a  meeting  to  present  him  with  a 
presentation  revolver.  For  the  national  fete  on 
the  14th  July,  1882,  a  larger  riot  was  planned  to 
take  place  in  Paris,  for  which  purpose  help  was  also 
sought  from  London.  But  as  there  happened  to  be 
a  review  of  troops  in  Paris  on  that  date,  the  An- 
archists contented  themselves  with  issuing  a  mani- 
festo "  to  the  Slaves  of  Labour,"  concluding  with 
the  words:  "  No  Fetes!  Death  to  the  Exploiters  of 
Labour!  Long  Live  the  Social  Revolution!"  In 
autumn,  1882,  riots  broke  out  in  Montceau-les-Mines 
and  Lyons,  in  which  violent  means  were  employed, 
including  dynamite.  Next  spring  (March,  1883), 
there  and  in  Paris  great  demonstrations  of  the 
"  unemployed  "  took  place  in  the  streets,  combined 
with  robbery  and  dynamite  outrages,  and  on  July 
14th  there  were  sanguinary  encounters  with  the 
armed  forces  of  the  State  in  Roubaix  and  elsewhere, 
when  the  populace  was  incited  to  arise  against  the 
bourgeoisie,  "  who  "  (it  was  said)  "  were  indulging 
in  festivities  while  they  had  condemned  Louise 
Michel,  the  champion  of  the  proletariat,  to  a  cruel 
imprisonment." 

The  French  Government  now  thought  it  no  lon- 
ger possible  to  look  on  quietly  at  these  proceedings, 
and  sought  to  secure  the  agitators,  which  proved  no 
light  task.  Of  the  fourteen  prisoners  accused  of 
complicity  in  the  riots  of  Montceau-les-Mines,  only 
nine  were  condemned  to  terms  of  imprisonment  of 
one  to  five  years  or  less  important  counts.  On  the 
other  hand,  at  the  Lyons  trial  of  19th  January,  1883, 


Spread  of  Anarchism  in  Europe       287 

only  three  out  of  sixty-six  were  acquitted  ;  the 
others,  including  Kropotkin,  his  follower  Gautier,  a 
brilliant  orator  and  fanatical  propagandist,  Bordas, 
Bernard,  and  others,  were  condemned  to  imprison- 
ment with  the  full  penalty  on  the  strength  of  the 
law  of  March  14,  1872,  against  the  "  International." 
Almost  all  the  accused,  including  Kropotkin,  openly 
confessed  that  both  intellectually  and  in  deed  they 
were  the  originators  of  the  excesses  at  Lyons  and 
Montceau-les-Mines,  and  that  they  were  Anarchists, 
but  denied  the  existence  of  an  international  organis- 
ation, and  protested  against  the  application  of  the 
law  of  the  14th  March,  1872. 

Similarly  the  Government  succeeded  in  securing 
the  ringleaders  of  the  demonstrations  in  Paris.  At 
the  same  time  the  Government  endeavoured  to  check 
the  Anarchist  agitation  by  administrative  methods ; 
but  nothing  could  stay  the  progress  of  the  new  move- 
ment that  had  started  since  the  London  Congress. 
France  is  the  headquarters  of  Anarchism,  Paris  con- 
tains its  leading  journals,  over  all  France  there  exists 
a  network  of  groups ;  the  propaganda  of  action  here 
celebrated  its  saddest  triumphs,  as  is  only  too  well 
shown  by  the  cases  of  Ravachol,  Henry,  and  Caserio. 

Switzerland,  the  original  home  of  the  Anarchism 
of  action,  now  gives  rise  to  but  little  comment. 
Immediately  after  the  London  Congress  Kropotkin 
developed  his  most  active  agitation  in  the  old  An- 
archist centre,  the  Lake  of  Geneva  district.  On 
July  4,  1882,  at  Lausanne,  at  an  annual  congress  of 
some  thirty  delegates,  Kropotkin  estimated  the 
number  of  his  adherents  at  two  thousand.     Lau- 


288  Anarchism 

sanne  Congress  adopted  the  same  attitude  as  the 
London  Congress,  and  took  the  opportunity  on  the 
occasion  of  the  international  musical  festival  at 
Geneva,  August  12  to  14,  1882,  to  hold  a  secret 
international  congress  there.  At  this  the  question 
of  the  separation  of  the  Anarchists  from  every  other 
party  was  discussed.  As  a  matter  of  fact  this  sepa- 
ration had  long  since  taken  place ;  the  long-drawn 
struggle  between  Marxists  and  Bakuninists  had 
caused  a  complete  division  between  the  Social  Demo- 
crats and  Anarchists ;  latterly  even  the  adherents  of 
Collectivism,  the  Possibilists,  and  other  groups  had 
separated  from  the  Anarchists ;  and  thus  the  Geneva 
Congress  merely  gave  expression  to  the  complete 
individualisation  of  the  new  movement,  and  it  was 
decided  to  make  the  new  programme  officially 
known  in  a  manifesto.     This  manifesto  ran : 

"  Our  ruler  is  our  enemy.  We  Anarchists,  /.  e., 
men  without  any  rulers,  fight  against  all  those  who 
have  usurped  any  power,  or  who  wish  to  usurp  it. 
Our  enemy  is  the  owner  who  keeps  the  land  for 
himself,  and  makes  the  peasant  work  for  his  advan- 
tage. Our  enemy  is  the  manufacturer  who  fills  his 
factory  with  wage-slaves;  our  enemy  is  the  State, 
whether  monarchical,  oligarchical,  or  democratic, 
with  its  ofificials  and  staff  of  officers,  magistrates, 
and  police  spies.  Our  enemy  is  every  thought  of 
authority,  whether  men  call  it  God  or  devil,  in 
whose  name  the  priests  have  so  long  ruled  honest 
people.  Our  enemy  is  the  law  which  always  op- 
presses the  weak  by  the  strong,  to  the  justification 
and  apotheosis  of  crime.     But  if  the  landowners, 


Spread  of  Anarchism  in  Europe       289 

the  manufacturers,  the  heads  of  the  State,  the 
priests,  and  the  law  are  our  enemies,  we  are  also 
theirs,  and  we  boldly  oppose  them.  We  intend  to 
reconquer  the  land  and  the  factory  from  the  land- 
owner and  the  manufacturer;  we  mean  to  annihilate 
the  State,  under  whatever  name  it  may  be  con- 
cealed ;  and  we  mean  to  get  our  freedom  back 
again  in  spite  of  priest  or  law.  According  to  our 
strength,  we  will  work  for  the  annihilation  of  all 
legal  institutions,  and  are  in  accord  with  everyone 
who  defies  the  law  by  a  revolutionary  act.  We  de- 
spise all  legal  means  because  they  are  the  negation 
of  our  rights;  we  do  not  want  so-called  universal 
suffrage,  since  we  cannot  get  away  from  our  own 
personal  sovereignty,  and  cannot  make  ourselves 
accomplices  in  the  crimes  committed  by  our  so- 
called  representatives.  Between  us  Anarchists  and 
all  political  parties,  whether  Conservatives  or  Mod- 
erates, whether  they  fight  for  freedom  or  recognise 
it  by  their  admissions,  a  deep  gulf  is  fixed.  We 
wish  to  remain  our  own  masters  and  he  among  us 
who  strives  to  become  a  chief  or  leader  is  a  traitor 
to  our  cause.  Of  course  we  know  that  individual 
freedom  cannot  exist  without  a  union  with  other 
free  associates.  We  all  live  by  the  support  one  of 
another,  that  is  the  social  life  which  has  created  us, 
that  is  the  work  of  all,  which  gives  to  each  the  con- 
sciousness of  his  rights  and  the  power  to  defend 
them.  Every  social  product  is  the  work  of  the 
whole  community,  to  which  all  have  a  claim  in 
equal  manner.  For  we  are  Communists;  we  recog- 
nise that  unless  patrimonial,  communal,  provincial, 
19 


290  Anarchism 

and  national  limits  are  abolished,  the  work  must  be 
begun  anew.  It  is  ours  to  conquer  and  defend 
common  property,  and  to  overthrow  governments 
by  whatever  name  they  may  be  called." 

In  spite  of  the  severe  repressive  measures  taken 
against  the  Swiss  Anarchists  in  consequence  of  the 
outrages  in  the  south  of  France,  in  which  they  were 
rightly  supposed  to  be  implicated,  they  held  their 
annual  congress  from  July  7  to  9,  1883,  at  Chaux- 
de-Fonds,  at  which  the  establishment  of  an  inter- 
national fund  "  for  the  sacrifice  of  the  reactionary 
bourgeoisie,"  the  disadvantage  from  the  Anarchist 
standpoint  of  a  union  of  revolutionary  groups,  and 
the  necessity  of  the  propaganda  of  action  were  de- 
cided upon. 

The  beginnings  of  German  Anarchism  in  Switzer- 
land date  from  the  characteristic  year  1880,  when 
the  division  among  German  Socialists  (arising  from 
Most's  influence)  was  felt  among  the  Swiss  working 
classes  also.  In  the  summer  of  1880  Most  himself 
was  in  Switzerland,  and  succeeded  in  collecting 
round  him  a  small  following,  which,  as  early  as 
October,  felt  itself  strong  enough  to  hold  on  the 
Lake  of  Geneva  a  sort  of  opposition  congress  to  the 
one  at  Wyden,  in  order  to  declare  its  decisions  null 
and  void.  At  the  same  time  the  Freedom  was  recog- 
nised as  the  organ  of  the  party.  The  London 
Congress  gave  a  new  impulse  to  the  agitation. 
Proceedings  were  at  once  taken  to  realise  in  Switzer- 
land the  London  programme;  groups  were  formed, 
and  connection  made  between  them  by  special  corre- 
spondents {triinardeurs),  a  propaganda  fund  estab- 


spread  of  Anarchism  in  Europe      291 

lished,  and  messages  sent  to  Germany  inciting  to 
commit  outrages  as  opportunity  offered.  In  conse- 
quence of  this  active  agitation,  the  Anarchist  groups 
in  France  and  N.  E.  Switzerland  continually  in- 
creased, and  when  in  1883  Host's  Freedom  no  longer 
could  be  published  in  London,  it  appeared  in 
Switzerland  under  the  editorship  of  Stellmacher, 
who  was  afterwards  executed  in  Vienna,  until  Most, 
after  performing  his  sentence  of  imprisonment  in 
London,  transferred  it  with  him  to  New  York.  In 
this  year  (1883)  the  growth  of  Anarchism  was  so 
rapid  that  its  adherents  even  succeeded  in  gaining 
the  majority  in  many  of  the  German  working-men's 
clubs  or  in  breaking  them  up.  In  August,  1883, 
the  Anarchists  held  a  secret  conference  in  Zurich, 
which  declared  Host's  system  of  groups  to  be  satis- 
factory ;  drew  up  a  new  plan  for  extending,  as  far 
as  possible  and  with  all  possible  safety,  the  spread 
of  Anarchist  literature;  and  considered  the  estab- 
lishment of  a  secret  printing-press.  The  activity  of 
the  Swiss  Anarchists  consisted  mainly  in  smuggling 
Anarchist  literature  into  Germany  and  Austria, 
while  the  Jurassic  Federation  again  concerned  itself 
chiefly  with  doing  the  same  for  Southern  France. 
Both  parties  now  had  the  most  friendly  relations 
one  with  another. 

Swiss  Anarchism  leads  us  directly  to  Germany 
and  Austria.  Germany  may  be  termed  the  most 
free  from  Anarchists  of  any  country  in  Europe.  In 
the  seventies  a  few  groups  had  been  founded  here 
from  Switzerland,  and  by  means  of  the  Arbeiter- 
zeitung {Working-Mens'  Journal),  appearing  in  Bern, 


292  Anarchism 

and  conducted  by  Reinsdorf,  a  former  compositor 
and  enthusiastic  agitator,  an  attempt  was  made  to 
convert  the  working  classes  of  Germany  to  Anarch- 
ism. But  owing  to  the  strength  of  Social  Democracy 
in  this  country,  all  Reinsdorf's  efforts  at  agitation 
were  in  vain.  Even  the  superior  skill  of  Johann 
Most  could  only  produce  very  feeble  and  transitory 
results.  When  he  openly  professed  Anarchism,  and 
was  expelled  from  the  Social  Democratic  party,  a 
small  following  remained  to  him  in  Germany ;  but 
in  the  German  Empire  only  a  dozen  or  so  groups 
were  formed  (chiefly  in  Berlin  and  Hamburg)  which 
adopted  Host's  programme;  but  their  numbers  did 
not  rise  above  two  hundred,  and  they  remained 
quite  unimportant. 

The  effects,  however,  of  Host's  agitation  in 
Switzerland  were  all  the  more  strongly  felt  in 
Austria,  the  classic  land  of  political  immaturity  and 
insecurity.  To-day  the  Austrian  Empire  is  almost 
free  from  Anarchists ;  other  elements  have  come  to 
take  up  the  role  of  fishing  in  troubled  waters.  But 
at  the  time  of  the  general  increase  of  Anarchism, 
after  the  London  Congress,  Austria-Hungary  was 
one  of  the  strongholds  of  Anarchism.  A  former 
house  painter,  Josef  Penkert,  a  man  who  had  given 
himself  a  very  fair  education  by  his  own  efforts,  and 
was  Host's  most  eager  pupil,  conducted  the  agitation 
in  Vienna  and  Pesth.  Groups  sprang  up,  and  the 
agitation  was  so  strong  that  the  new  Social  Demo- 
cratic party  was  soon  relegated  to  the  background. 
Everywhere  Anarchist  papers  arose — in  Vienna  the 
Zukunft  {Future)  and  the  Delnicke  Listy,  in  Reichen- 


Spread  of  Anarchism  in  Europe       293 

berg  the  Radical,  in  Prague  the  Socialist  and  the 
Communist,  in  Lemberg  the  Praca,  in  Cracow  the 
Robotnik  and  the  Przedswit,  imported  from  Switzer- 
land. The  chief  organs  of  Austrian  Anarchism, 
however,  flourished  on  the  other  side  of  the  river 
Leitha,  where  the  press  laws  were  interpreted  more 
liberally  than  in  the  west  of  the  kingdom.  In 
Hungary  there  were  numerous  Anarchist  journals, 
some  of  which,  like  the  Pesth  Socialist,  preached  the 
most  sanguinary  and  merciless  propaganda.  This 
was  acted  upon  in  Vienna,  under  the  guidance  of 
Penkert,  Stellmacher,  and  Kammerer,  in  such  a  way 
that  M.os,\.'s  Freedom,  which  was  smuggled  in  in  large 
quantities,  was  delighted  at  it.  In  1881  Anarchist 
meetings  had  collisions  with  the  authorities.  The 
money  for  the  agitation  was  obtained  by  robbery, 
as  the  trial  of  Merstallinger  proved.  The  most 
prominent  Anarchist  speakers  were  examined  ju- 
dicially in  consequence  of  this  trial,  which  took 
place  in  March,  1882,  but  had  to  be  acquitted, 
which  naturally  only  increased  the  confidence  of  the 
propagandists.  The  Socialists  succeeded  no  better 
in  making  headway  against  this  rapidly  increasing 
movement.  The"  General  Workmen's  Conference," 
sitting  at  Brunn  on  the  15th  and  i6th  of  October, 
1882,  certainly  passed  an  open  vote  of  want  of  con- 
fidence against  the  Anarchist  minority,  but  a  resolu- 
tion to  the  effect  that  Merstallinger's  offence  was  a 
common  crime,  that  the  tactics  preached  by  the 
Anarchists  ought  to  be  rejected  as  unworthy  of 
Social  Democrats,  and  that  all  adherents  of  such 
tactics  were  to  be  regarded  as  enemies  and  traitors 


294  Anarchism 

to  the  people — this  was  rejected  after  a  hot  debate. 
All  this  naturally  increased  the  confidence  and  reck- 
lessness of  the  Anarchist  agitation.  Secret  printing- 
presses  were  busily  engaged  spreading  incendiary 
literature,  which  advocated  the  murder  of  police 
officials  and  explained  the  tactics  suitable  for  this 
purpose.  On  the  26th  and  27th  October,  1883,  at 
a  secret  conference  at  Lang  Enzersdorf,  a  new  plan 
of  action  was  discussed  and  adopted,  namely,  to 
proceed  with  all  means  in  their  power  to  take  action 
against  "  exploiters  and  agents  of  authority,"  to 
keep  people  in  a  state  of  continual  excitement  by 
such  acts  of  terrorism,  and  to  bring  about  the  revo- 
lution in  every  possible  way.  This  programme  was 
immediately  acted  upon  in  the  murder  of  several 
police  agents.  On  December  15,  1883,  at  Florids- 
dorf,  a  police  official  named  Hlubek  was  murdered, 
and  the  condemnation  of  Rouget,  who  was  con- 
victed of  the  crime,  on  June  23,  1884,  was  immedi- 
ately answered  the  next  day  by  the  murder  of  the 
police  agent  Bloct.  The  Government  now  took 
energetic  measures.  By  order  of  the  Ministry,  a 
state  of  siege  was  proclaimed  in  Vienna  and  district 
from  January  30,  1884,  by  which  the  usual  tribunals 
for  certain  crimes  and  offences  were  temporarily 
suspended,  and  the  severest  repressive  measures 
were  exercised  against  the  Anarchists,  so  that  An- 
archism in  Austria  rapidly  declined,  and  at  the  same 
time  it  soon  lost  its  leaders.  Stellmacher  and 
Kammerer  were  executed,  Penkert  escaped  to  Eng- 
land, most  of  the  other  agitators  were  fast  in  prison, 
the  journals  were  suppressed  and  the  groups  broken 


Spread  of  Anarchism  in  Europe       295 

up.  The  same  occurred  in  Hungary,  which  had 
only  followed  the  fashion  in  Austria,  for  in  Hungary 
the  social  question  is  by  no  means  so  acute  and  the 
public  movement  in  it  is  merely  political. 

At  present  Anarchism  in  Germany  and  Austria  is 
confined  to  an  (at  most)  harmless  doctrinaireism, 
and  it  will  be  well  to  accept  with  great  reserve  any 
statements  to  the  contrary;  for  neither  those  who 
were  condemned  at  the  last  Anarchist  trial  at 
Vienna,  nor  the  Bohemian  Anarchist  and  Omladin- 
ist  trials,  nor  the  suspected  persons  who  have  re- 
cently migrated  to  Germany,  appear  to  have  been 
more  than  half  conscious  of  Anarchism,  nor  do  they 
appear  to  have  had  any  international  associations. 

In  Belgium,  also,  after  the  passing  of  the  German 
Socialist  laws,  a  difference  of  opinion  became  mani- 
fest among  the  working  classes,  which  gave  new  life 
to  Anarchism,  almost  extinct  as  it  was  at  the  end 
of  the  seventies.  The  "  German  Reading  Union  " 
in  Brussels  split  into  two  parties,  the  more  radical 
of  which  was  filled  with  Most's  ideas  and  eagerly 
agitated  for  the  dissemination  of  his  Freedom.  As 
this  radical  tendency  had  found  many  supporters 
among  the  German  Socialists,  it  made  itself  notice- 
able at  the  Brussels  Congress  of  1880.  The  keener 
became  the  struggle  between  the  Most-Hasselmann 
and  the  Bebel-Liebknecht  parties,  the  more  sharply 
defined  became  the  opposition  in  the  ranks  of  the 
Belgian  working  classes.  The  Radicals  united  into  a 
"  Union  R^volutionnaire  "  ;  founded  their  own  party 
organ.  La  Perseverance,  at  Verviers  ;  and  declared 
themselves  in  favour  of  the  London  Congress  as 


296  Anarchism 

against  that  at  Coire.  The  others  held  quarterly  ad- 
visory congresses  at  Brussels,  Verviers,  and  Ceresmes, 
at  which  it  was  agreed  to  revive  the  "  International 
Working-Men's  Association  "  on  a  revolutionary 
basis  and  not  to  limit  the  various  groups  in  their 
autonomy.  These  meetings  also  adopted  the  reso- 
lution which  the  German  members  in  Brussels  had 
suggested  about  the  employment  of  explosives. 
But  in  spite  of  the  active  agitation,  and  the  found- 
ing of  the  "  Republican  League"  to  show  the 
activity  of  the  Anarchists  as  opposed  to  the  Socialist 
"  Electoral  Reform  League,"  Anarchism  in  Belgium 
made  no  progress,  mainly  on  account  of  internal 
dissension,  and  the  annual  congress  arranged  for 
1882  did  not  even  take  place.  In  spite  of  the  most 
active  propaganda,  circumstances  have  not  altered  in 
Belgium  during  the  last  ten  years.  We  must  be 
careful  not  to  set  down  to  the  Anarchists  the  re- 
peated dynamite  outrages  which  are  so  common 
during  the  great  strikes  in  Belgium,  although  in 
certain  isolated  cases,  as  in  the  dynamite  affair  at 
Gomshoren,  near  Brussels,  in  1883,  the  hand  of  the 
Anarchists  cannot  be  mistaken. 

England,  the  ancient  refuge  of  political  offenders, 
although  it  has  sheltered  Bakunin,  Kropotkin, 
Reclus,  Most,  Penkert,  Louise  Michel,  Cafiero, 
Malatesta,  and  other  Anarchist  leaders,  and  still 
shelters  some  of  them ;  although  London  is  rich  in 
Anarchist  clubs  and  newspapers,  meetings  and  con- 
gresses, yet  possesses  no  Anarchism  "  native  to  the 
soil,"  and  has  formed  at  all  times  rather  a  kind  of 
exchange  or  market-place  for  Anarchist  ideas,  mo- 


spread  of  Anarchism  in  Europe       297 

tive  forces,  and  the  literature  of  agitation.  London 
is  especially  the  headquarters  of  German  Anarchism  ; 
the  English  working  classes  have,  however,  always 
regarded  their  ideas  very  coldly,  while  the  Govern- 
ment have  always  regarded  the  eccentric  proceed- 
ings of  the  Anarchists,  as  long  as  they  confined 
themselves  merely  to  talking  and  writing,  in  the  most 
logical  spirit  of  the  doctrine  of  laisser  faire.  Cer- 
tainly, when  Most  went  a  little  too  far  in  his  Free- 
dom, the  full  power  of  the  English  law  was  put  in 
motion  against  him,  and  condemned  him  on  one 
occasion  to  sixteen,  and  on  another  to  eighteen 
months'  imprisonment  with  hard  labour.  But  of 
greater  effect  than  this  punishment  was  the  fact 
that  in  all  London  no  printer  could  be  found  to 
set  up  the  type  for  Freedom.  Thereupon  Most  left 
thankless  Old  England  grumbling,  and  went  to  the 
New  World,  where,  however,  he  was,  if  possible, 
taken  even  less  seriously. 

Spain  was  the  only  country  where  Anarchism, 
even  under  the  new  impulse  of  the  London  Con- 
gress, really  kept  in  the  main  to  its  old  Collectivist 
principles.  In  consequence  of  the  movement  pro- 
ceeding from  the  London  Congress,  the  Spanish 
Anarchists  called  a  national  congress  at  Barcelona 
on  September  24  and  25,  1881,  at  which,  in  the 
presence  of  one  hundred  and  forty  delegates,  a  pro- 
gramme and  statutes  of  organisation  were  drawn  up 
and  a  "  Spanish  Federation  of  the  International 
Working-Men's  Association  "  was  founded.  Its 
aim  was  to  be  the  political,  economic,  and  social 
emancipation   of    all    the   working   classes    by   the 


298  Anarchism 

establishment  of  a  form  of  society  founded  upon  a 
Collectivist  basis,  and  guaranteeing  the  uncondi- 
tional autonomy  of  the  free  and  federally  united 
communes.  The  only  means  of  reaching  this  aim 
was  declared  to  be  a  revolutionary  upheaval  carried 
out  by  force.  The  organisation  sketched  out  at  the 
Barcelona  Congress  is  quite  in  Proudhon's  spirit; 
the  arrangement  of  its  members  was  to  be  a  double 
one,  both  by  trades  and  districts,  and  both  divisions 
had  mutually  to  enlarge  each  other.  The  basis  of 
the  trade  organisation  was  to  be  formed  by  the 
single  local  groups;  these  were  to  be  united  into 
local  associations,  these  into  provincial  associations, 
and  these  again  into  a  national  association,  the 
"  Union."  Monthly,  quarterly,  and  yearly  con- 
ferences, and  the  committees  attached  to  them,  were 
to  form  the  decisive  and  executive  organs  of  these 
associations.  Parallel  with  the  arrangement  by 
trades  was  to  be  the  territorial  arrangement,  all  the 
local  trade  associations  of  the  same  district  being 
formed  into  one  united  local  association,  this  again 
into  provincial  associations,  these  into  the  national 
association  of  the  whole  country,  i.  e.,  into  the 
"Federation";  and  here  again  local,  provincial, 
and  national  congresses  performed  all  executive 
functions  as  local,  provincial,  and  national  com- 
mittees. The  National  Committee  established  by 
the  Congress  developed  immediately  an  active  agi- 
tation, so  that  at  the  next  congress  at  Seville  (24th 
to  26th  September,  1883),  attended  by  254  delegates, 
the  Federation  numbered  already  10  provincial,  200 
local  unions,  and  632  sections,  with  50,000  members, 


Spread  of  Anarchism  in  Europe       299 

Their  organ,  the  Revista  Social,  which  appeared  in 
Madrid,  possessed  about  10,000  subscribers,  although 
besides  this  there  were  several  local  journals. 

But  this  rapid  growth  of  the  Anarchist  movement 
in  Spain  was  followed  by  a  retrogression,  mainly 
caused  by  the  increased  severity  of  the  measures 
taken  by  the  Government  in  consequence  of  the 
terrorism  created  by  the  Andalusian  secret  society  of 
"  The  Black  Hand  "  (Mano  Negra),  and  proceedings 
were  taken  against  the  Anarchists.  Their  examina- 
tion, however,  failed  to  reveal  the  supposed  connec- 
tion between  the  Mano  Negra  and  Anarchism,  and 
the  Anarchists,  who  had  been  arrested  wholesale, 
had  to  be  acquitted.  The  Federation  itself  had 
expressed  to  every  society  its  disapproval  of  the 
"  secret  actions  of  those  assassins,"  and  had  pointed 
to  the  legality  and  public  nature  of  their  organisa- 
tion and  agitation,  as  well  as  to  their  statutes, 
which  had  received  the  approval  of  the  authorities. 
The  congress  at  Valencia  (1883)  repeated  this  decla- 
ration. Henceforth  Spanish  Anarchism  proceeded 
on  peaceful  lines,  and  only  in  the  last  few  years  did 
it  have  recourse  to  force  after  the  example  of  the 
French,  as,  e.g.,  in  the  attack  on  Campos,  and. the 
outrage  in  the  Liceo  Theatre  at  Barcelona. 

As  to  Italy,  here  also  after  1880  Anarchism  awoke 
to  new  life,  as  it  did  everywhere  else,  and  at  the 
same  time  broke  finally  with  the  Democratic  Social- 
ists. In  December,  1886,  the  Anarchists  held  a 
secret  congress  at  Chiasso,  at  which  fifteen  delegates 
of  cities  of  North  Italy  took  part.  These  professed 
Anarchist  Communism,  viewed  with  horror  any  di- 


300  Anarchism 

vision  au  choix,  and  recommended  "  the  use  of  every 
favorable  opportunity  for  seriously  disturbing  public 
order."  In  agreement  with  this  the  Italians,  repre- 
sented by  Cafiero  and  Malatesta,  took  part  in  the 
London  Congress  in  the  following  year.  On  their 
return  these  two  men  developed  an  active  agitation, 
and  began  a  bitter  campaign  against  the  moderate 
Socialists,  especially  when  their  leader  Costa  was 
elected  to  Parliament,  which  the  Anarchists  regarded 
as  a  betrayal  of  the  proletariat  to  the  bourgeoisie. 
In  the  year  1883  Malatesta  was  arrested  at  Florence, 
and,  with  several  companions,  condemned  by  the 
royal  courts,  on  February  i,  1884,  to  several  years' 
imprisonment,  it  being  proved  that  groups  had 
already  been  formed  in  Rome,  Florence,  and  Naples 
on  the  basis  of  the  London  programme,  and  that 
these  groups  had  planned  and  prepared  dynamite 
outrages.  Leghorn,  which  in  the  time  of  the 
Romans  was  a  refuge  for  criminals,  may  be  re- 
garded as  the  centre  of  modern  Italian  Anarchism. 
"  In  Leghorn,"  writes  one  who  knows  his  facts, 
"  the  number  of  the  Anarchists  of  action  is  legion. 
The  idea  of  slaking  their  inborn  thirst  for  blood  on 
the  'fat  bourgeoisie '  could  not  fail  to  gain  many  ad- 
herents among  the  descendants  of  that  Sciolla,  who 
at  the  time  of  the  last  Grand  Duke  founded  the 
celebrated  dagger-band  and  slew  700  people;  how 
many  adherents  it  gained  may  be  seen  from  the 
figures  of  the  last  election  (March,  1894),  when  3200 
electors  voted  for  the  Anarchist  murderer  Merga. " 
Lugo  (the  home  of  Lega),  Forli,  and  Cesena  form 
important  centres  of  Italian  Anarchism.     The  ro/e 


Spread  of  Anarchism  in  Europe       301 

which  it  has  played  in  the  international  propaganda 
is  fresh  in  the  memory  of  all,  and  is  sufficiently  indi- 
cated by  the  names  of  Lega  and  Caserio. 

It  will  be  seen  from  the  foregoing  that  Anarchism, 
after  retrograding  till  the  end  of  the  seventies,  made 
unexpectedly  rapid  progress  in  every  country  after 
1880,  lasting  till  about  1884,  but  after  that  a  new 
reaction,  or  at  least  a  diminution  of  propaganda,  is 
to  be  noticed.  The  renewed  force  with  which  the 
Anarchism  of  action  has  during  the  last  three  years 
or  so  made  itself  felt  in  the  Latin  countries,  appears 
already  to  present  new  features ;  this  may  be  termed 
the  third  epoch  of  Anarchism.  The  epoch  dating 
from  the  London  Congress  is  characterised  by  cer- 
tain party  features  (federations,  alliances,  etc.), 
which  have  now  quite  disappeared. 

With  Host's  departure  for  America,  the  central 
government  created  by  him — if  we  can  speak  of  a 
central  government  in  view  of  the  complete  auto- 
nomy of  the  groups — appears  to  have  completely 
lost  its  power,  and  when,  at  the  congresses  of 
Chicago  (1891)  and  London  (1892),  Merlino  and 
Malatesta  moved  that  some  form  of  leadership  of 
the  party  should  be  established,  their  motion  was 
rejected,  it  being  pointed  out  that  it  was  inconsist- 
ent with  the  main  Anarchist  principle  :  "  Do  as 
thou  wilt."  When  nowadays  we  hear  talk  of  an 
"  International  Organisation  "  of  an  Anarchist  party 
and  so  forth,  this  must  be  taken  merely  in  the  very 
wide  meaning  of  a  completely  free  entente  between 
single  groups. 


302  Anarchism 

Everything  at  present  rests  with  the  "  group," 
which  is,  at  the  same  time,  very  small  and  of  an 
extremely  fluctuating  character.  Five,  seven,  or  at 
most  a  dozen  men  unite  in  a  group  according  to 
occupation,  personal  relationships,  propinquity  of 
dwelling,  or  other  causes ;  only  after  a  certain  time 
to  separate  again.  The  groups  are  only  connected 
with  each  other  almost  entirely  by  means  of  moving 
intermediaries,  called  trimardeurs,  a  slang  expres- 
sion borrowed  from  the  thieves.  This  organisation 
completely  corresponds  to  the  purely  individual 
character  of  their  actions ;  Anarchist  riots  and  con- 
spiracies are  out  of  fashion;  and  the  outrages  of 
recent  years  have  arisen  almost  exclusively  from  the 
initiative  of  individuals.  This  circumstance,  as  well 
as  the  whole  organisation  of  the  Anarchists,  of 
course  renders  difficult  any  summary  proceedings 
on  the  part  of  the  Government  of  the  country; 
which  is  probably  by  no  means  the  least  important 
reason  for  the  adoption  of  these  tactics  by  the  An- 
archists. 

As  to  the  numerical  strength  of  Anarchism,  differ- 
ent estimates  are  given  by  the  Anarchists  and  their 
opponents ;  but  all  of  them  are  very  untrustworthy. 
Kropotkin,  in  1882,  gave  the  numbers  of  those 
living  at  Lyons  at  3CXXD ;  those  in  the  basin  of  the 
Rhone  at  5000;  and  spoke  of  thousands  of  others 
living  in  the  south  of  France.  One  of  the  sixty-six 
defendants  at  the  Lyons  trial  wrote:  "We  are 
all  captured  " — a  remarkable  difference  of  numbers 
compared  with  Kropotkin's  3000.  Lately,  the  Paris 
Figaro  has  published  some  data,  said  to  be  from  an 


Spread  of  Anarchism  in  Europe      303 

authentic  source,  about  the  strength  of  the  Anarch- 
ists, and,  according  to  this  journal,  about  2000 
Anarchists  are  known  to  the  police  in  France,  among 
whom  are  about  500  Frenchmen  and  1 5CK)  foreigners. 
The  majority  of  these  foreign  Anarchists  consists  of 
the  Italians  (45  per  cent.),  then  come  the  Swiss  (25 
per  cent.),  the  Germans  and  Russians  (20  per  cent., 
each),  Belgians  and  Austrians  (5  per  cent.,  each), 
Spaniards  and  Bulgarians  (each  2  per  cent.),  and  the 
natives  of  several  minor  States.  This  proportionate 
percentage  of  course  only  refers  to  Anarchists  living 
in  France  or  known  there,  and  cannot  be  taken  as 
trustworthy  for  international  numbers.  We  have 
in  fact  practically  no  knowledge  of  its  present 
strength,  for  it  is  as  often  undervalued  as  overrated. 
When  this  is  done  by  those  who  are  not  Anarchists, 
it  cannot  be  wondered  at,  since  one  of  the  leaders 
of  the  Anarchism  of  action  in  Paris  confessed  his 
own  ignorance  by  the  remark:  "  There  are  in  the 
world  some  thousands  of  us,  perhaps  some  millions." 


i^iMW'^ 


CHAPTER  IX 


CONCLUDING  REMARKS 


Legislation  against  Anarchists — Anarchism  and  Crime — Tolerance 
towards  Anarchist  Theory — Suppression  of  Anarchist  Crime — 
Conclusion. 


HEN  about  a  year  ago  (1894)  the 
Italian  Caserio,  a  baker's  apprentice, 
assassinated  the  amiable  and  re- 
spected President  of  the  French  Re- 
public, probably  thinking  that  he 
was  thereby  ridding  the  world  of  a  tyrant,  the  pub- 
lic, in  a  mood  perfectly  comprehensible  if  not  justifi- 
able, was  ready  to  take  the  severest  measures  against 
anyone  suspected  of  Anarchism.  An  international 
convention  against  the  Anarchists  was  demanded,  but 
this  was  almost  unanimously  rejected  by  European 
diplomatists.  Parliaments,  however,  showed  them- 
selves more  subservient  to  the  anxiety  of  the  public 
than  the  diplomatists.  Italy  gave  its  Government 
full  powers  over  administrative  dealings  with  all 
suspected  persons,  and  France  passed  a  Press  law 
limiting  very  considerably,  not  only  the  Anarchist 
press,  but  the  press  generally.     Spain  had  already 

304 


Concluding  Remarks  305 

anticipated  this  action.  Germany  took  all  manner  of 
trouble  to  frame  exceptional  laws,  although  one  can- 
not quite  see  how  this  country  was  concerned  in  the 
matter.  England  alone,  true  to  its  traditions,  re- 
jected the  proposal  of  the  House  of  Lords  to  pass 
exceptional  laws  against  the  Anarchists,  Lord 
Rosebery,  who  was  then  Premier,  declaring  that 
the  ordinary  law  and  the  existing  executive  or- 
ganisation were  amply  sufficient  to  cope  with  the 
Anarchists. 

The  question  as  to  which  State  has  pursued  the 
better  policy  appears  at  first  extremely  difficult  to 
answer.  It  is  believed  that  we  have  in  Anarchism 
something  quite  new,  which  has  never  occurred  be- 
fore, something  monstrous  and  not  human,  against 
which  quite  extraordinary  measures  are  permissible. 
To  judge  whether  this  standpoint  is  correct,  we 
must,  before  everything,  distinguish  carefully  the 
theory  from  the  propaganda. 

The  common  view — or  prejudice — soon  disposes 
of  the  Anarchist  theory:  the  anxious  possessor  of 
goods  thinks  it  is  nothing  less  than  a  direct  incite- 
ment to  robbery  and  murder;  the  practical  politician 
merely  regards  the  Anarchist  theory  as  not  worth 
debate,  because  it  could  not  be  carried  out  in  prac- 
tice; and  even  men  of  science,  as  we  have  seen  in 
the  case  of  Laveleye,  and  could  prove  by  other  ex- 
amples, look  upon  Anarchist  theories  merely  as  the 
mad  and  feverish  fancies  of  extravagant  minds. 

None  of  them  would  much  mind  if  all  Anarchist 
literature  were  consumed  in  an  auto  da  fi  and  the 
authors  thereof  rendered  harmless  by  being  sent  off 


3o6  Anarchism 

to  Siberia  or  New  Caledonia.  Such  judgments  are 
easily  passed,  but  whether  one  could  settle  the  ques- 
tion permanently  thereby  is  another  matter. 

That  the  theory  of  Anarchism  is  not  merely  a 
systematic  incitement  to  robbery  and  murder  we 
need  hardly  repeat,  now  that  we  have  concluded  an 
exhaustive  statement  of  it.  Proudhon  and  Stirner, 
the  men  who  have  laid  down  the  basis  of  the  new 
doctrine,  never  once  preached  force.  "  If  ideas  once 
have  originated,"  said  Proudhon  once,  "  the  very 
paving-stones  would  rise  of  themselves,  unless  the 
Government  has  sense  enough  to  avert  this.  And  if 
such  is  not  the  case,  then  nothing  is  of  any  use."  It 
will  be  admitted  that,  for  a  revolutionary,  this  is  a 
very  moderate  speech.  The  doctrine  of  propaganda, 
which  since  Proudhon's  time  has  always  accompanied 
a  certain  form  of  Anarchist  theory,  is  a  foreign  ele- 
ment, having  no  necessary  or  internal  connection 
with  the  fundamental  ideas  of  Anarchism.  It  is 
simply  a  piece  of  tactics  borrowed  from  the  circum- 
stances peculiar  to  Russia,  and  accepted  moreover 
only  by  one  fraction  of  the  Anarchists,  and  approved 
by  very  few  indeed  in  its  most  crude  form;  it  is 
merely  the  old  tactics  of  all  revolutionary  parties  in 
every  age.  The  deeds  of  people  like  Jacques  Clem- 
ent, Ravaillac,  Corday,  Sand,  and  Caserio,  are  all  of 
the  same  kind ;  hardly  anyone  will  be  found  to-day  to 
maintain  that  Sand's  action  followed  from  the  views 
of  the  Burschenschaft,  or  Clement's  from  Catholic- 
ism, even  when  we  learn  that  Sand  was  regarded  by 
his  fellows  as  a  saint,  as  was  Charlotte  Corday  and 
Clement,   or  even   when   learned   Jesuits   like   Sa, 


Concluding  Remarks  307 

Mariana,  and  others,  cum  licentia  et  approhatione 
superiorum,  in  connection  with  Clement's  outrage, 
discussed  the  question  of  regicide  in  a  manner  not 
unworthy  of  Netschajew  or  Most. 

We  may  quote  the  remarks  of  a  specialist '  upon 
the   connection    between    politics   and  criminality. 

Historj'  is  rich  in  examples  of  the  combination  of 
criminal  acts  with  politics,  wherein  sometimes  politi- 
cal passion  and  sometimes  a  criminal  disposition 
forms  the  chief  element.  While  Pompeius  the 
Sober  has  all  honest  people  on  his  side,  his  talented 
contemporaries,  Cicero,  Caesar,  and  Brutus  have  as 
followers  ^11  the  baser  sort,  men  like  Clodius  and 
Cataline,'  libertines  and  drunkards  like  Antonius, 
the  bankrupt  Curio,  the  mad  Clelius,  Dolabella  the 
spendthrift,  who  wanted  to  repudiate  all  his  debts 
by  passing  a  law.  The  Greek  Clephts,  those  brave 
champions  of  the  independence  of  their  home,  were, 
in  times  of  peace,  brigands.  In  Italy  the  Papacy 
and  the  Bourbons  in  i860  kept  the  brigands  in  their 
pay  against  the  national  party  and  its  troops;  and 
Garibaldi  had  on  his  side  in  Sicily  the  Maffia,  just 
as  in  Naples  the  Liberals  were  supported  by  the 
Camorra.  This  alliance  with  the  Camorra  is  not 
even  yet  quite  dissolved,  as  the  occurrences  in 
Naples  at  the  time  of  the  recent  disturbances  in  the 
Italian  Parliament  have  shown,  nor  will  matters 
probably  improve.  Criminals  usually  take  a  large 
share  in  the  initial  stages  of  insurrections  and  revo- 

•  Lombroso,  Die  Anarchisten,  p.  33.     Hamburg,  1896. 
'  Cataline  as  a  follower  of  Cicero  is  a  new  version  of  the  supposed 
facts. — Trans. 


3o8  Anarchism 

lutions,  for  at  a  time  when  the  weak  and  undecided 
are  still  hesitating,  the  impulsive  force  of  abnormal 
and  unhealthy  natures  preponderates,  and  their 
example  calls  forth  epidemics  of  excesses. 

"  Chenn,  in  his  remarks  upon  revolutionary  move- 
ments in  France  before  1848,  has  shown  that  political 
passion  gradually  degenerated  into  unconcealed 
criminal  attempts;  thus  the  precursors  of  Anarch- 
ism at  that  time  had  for  leader  a  certain  Coffirean, 
who  finally  became  a  raving  Communist,  and  ex- 
alted thieving  into  a  socio-political  principle,  plun- 
dered the  merchants  with  the  aid  of  his  adherents, 
because  in  his  opinion  they  cheated  their  customers ; 
by  thus  doing  they  believed  they  were  only  making 
perfectly  justifiable  reprisals,  and  at  the  same  time 
converting  the  plundered  ones  into  discontented 
men  who  would  join  the  revolutionary  cause.  This 
group  also  occupied  themselves  in  the  manufacture 
of  forged  bank  notes,  which  led  in  1847  to  their 
being  discovered  and  severely  punished  after  the 
real  Republicans  had  disowned  them.  In  England 
at  the  time  of  the  conspiracies  against  Cromwell, 
bands  of  robbers  collected  in  the  neighbourhood  of 
London,  and  the  number  of  thieves  increased ;  the 
robber-bands  assumed  a  political  colouring  and  asked 
those  whom  they  attacked  whether  they  had  sworn 
an  oath  of  fidelity  to  the  Republic,  and  according  to 
their  answer  they  let  them  go  or  robbed  and  ill- 
treated  them.  Companies  of  soldiers  had  to  be  sent 
to  repress  them,  nor  were  the  soldiers  always  victor- 
ious. Hordes  of  vagabonds,  bands  of  robbers,  and 
societies  of  thieves  in  unheard-of  numbers  also  ap- 


Concluding  Remarks  3<^ 

peared  as  forerunners  of  the  French  Revolution. 
Mercier  states  that  in  1789  an  army  of  10,000  vaga- 
bonds gradually  approached  Paris  and  penetrated 
into  the  city;  these  were  the  rabble  that  attended 
the  wholesale  executions  during  the  Reign  of  Terror 
and  later  took  part  in  the  fusilades  at  Toulon  and 
the  wholesale  drownings  at  Nantes;  at  the  same 
time  the  revolutionary  troops  and  militia  were,  ac- 
cording to  Meissner,  merely  organised  bands  who 
committed  every  kind  of  murder,  robbery,  and  ex- 
tortion. The  criminals  who  happened  to  be  caught 
occasionally  during  the  Revolution  sought  to  save 
themselves  by  the  cry  oi  ct  I ' aristocrate ;  when  on 
trial  they  behaved  in  the  most  audacious  manner, 
and  grinned  at  the  judges  when  condemned,  and 
the  women  behaved  most  shamelessly.  In  1790 
only  490  accused,  and  in  1791  not  more  than  1198, 
were  sent  to  the  Conciergerie.  A  similar  state  of 
affairs  prevailed  in  the  Commune  of  1871.  Among 
the  population  then  in  Paris,  deceived  as  they  were 
in  their  patriotic  hopes,  unnerved  by  inglorious 
combats,  weakened  by  hunger  and  alcohol,  no  one 
cared  to  bestir  themselves  but  the  unruly  elements, 
the  d^class^s,  the  criminals,  the  madmen,  and  the 
drunkards  who  imposed  their  will  upon  the  city; 
that  these  were  the  main  elements  in  the  rising  is 
shown  by  the  slaughter  of  helpless  captives,  by  the 
refined  cruelty  of  the  murderers,  who  compelled 
their  victims  to  jump  over  a  wall,  and  shot  them 
while  doing  so,  while  others  were  riddled  by  bullets ; 
thus  one  citizen  received  sixty-nine  bullets,  and 
Abb6  Bengy  had  sixty-two  bayonet  wounds." 


3IO  Anarchism 

The  foregoing  examples  could  easily  be  increased 
in  order  to  show  that  the  criminal  tactics  of  the  An- 
archists are  nothing  new.  If  they  are  more  formid- 
able and  more  monstrous  than  those  of  the  religious 
dissenters  of  the  Renaissance  or  the  political  criminals 
of  the  Revolutionary  period,  the  reason  lies  in  the 
age  in  which  we  live.  We  mean  that  those  who  use 
the  progress  of  modern  mechanics,  chemistry,  techni- 
cal science,  and  so  on,  solely  in  order  to  increase 
the  terror  inspired  by  organised  murder,  and  to 
make  the  furies  of  war  invincible,  ought  not  to  be 
so  surprised  if  the  revolutionaries  in  their  turn  no 
longer  content  themselves  with  old-fashioned  weap- 
ons, but  seek  to  utilise  also  the  achievements  of 
modern  chemistry.  Exampla  trahunt.  The  Anar- 
chist propaganda  should  not  be  judged  so  severely; 
new  and  wonderful  as  it  appears  to  the  majority,  it 
is  by  no  means  so  in  reality ;  it  is  the  stock  piece 
of  all  revolutionaries,  somewhat  modernised  and 
adapted  to  a  new  age  and  a  new  doctrine. 

Certainly  the  Anarchist  doctrine  is  something 
new,  if  you  will ;  but  we  consider  this  means  little 
if  it  merely  expresses  the  fact  that  these  new  de- 
mands exceed  all  previous  changes  in  society.  This 
is  too  trivial  to  justify  the  application  of  exceptional 
measures  and  the  suspension  of  the  principle  of  tole- 
rance to  all  opinions.  The  Anarchists  are  not, 
after  all,  so  very  original;  they  are  a  modernised 
version  of  the  Chiliasts  of  more  than  a  thousand 
years  ago,  and  differ  from  them  only  as  the  mental 
conception  of  the  present  differs  from  that  of  Ire- 
naeus.     For  he  sought  to  justify  his  dreams  by  an 


Concluding  Remarks  3" 

appeal  to  religion,  while  the  Anarchists  appeal  to 
modern  science.  That  is  all.  But  if  we  blame  for 
its  intolerance,  and  stigmatise  as  belonging  to  the 
"  dark  ages,"  the  age  that  persecuted  the  Chiliasts 
with  fire  and  sword,  we  certainly  ought  not  to  show 
a  still  greater  intolerance  to  the  Chiliasts  of  our  own 
day. 

But  it  may  be  said  that  this  fantasy,  this  An- 
archist theory,  is  far  more  dangerous  than  all  the 
other  errors  that  have  preceded  it  ;  it  wishes  to 
abolish  property,  reduce  the  family  to  Hetairism, 
and  so  forth.  We  hope  we  have  shown  clearly  in 
the  preceding  pages  that,  at  bottom,  all  Anarchist 
theories,  even  Kropotkin's,  are  very  harmless,  and 
would  merely  result  in  leaving  everything  as  before, 
merely  changing  the  present  compulsory  system  into 
a  voluntary  one.  A  large  group  of  Anarchists,  in- 
deed the  most  extreme,  are  pure  Individualists,  even 
maintaining  individual  property;  how  this  could  be 
maintained  without  some  legal  guarantee  is  a  ques- 
tion for  themselves ;  but  it  is  evident  that  the  Anar- 
chist theory  would  alter  the  existing  state  of  things 
much  less  than  the  social-democratic  theory ;  for  the 
latter  demands  the  cessation  of  Individualist  eco- 
nomy, and  would  punish  any  opposition  to  its  views 
as  a  crime,  just  as  we  punish  theft  to-day.  It  is  the 
same  with  marriage.  Anarchists  of  all  parties  merely 
wish  the  family  to  be  changed  into  the  "  family 
group "  ;  but  that  means  that  everything  could 
practically  remain  unchanged ;  only  the  legal  guar- 
antees and  privileges  associated  with  marriage  must 
be  abolished.     We  will  neither  discuss  the  morality. 


312  Anarchism 

or  lack  of  it,  nor  the  practicability  or  impracticabil- 
ity of  this  idea;  but  in  this  the  Anarchists  go  no 
further  than  what  Fichte,  or  that  moderate  liberal, 
Wilhelm  von  Humboldt,  or  even  F.  A.  Schlegel, 
the  poet  of  Lucinde,  have  demanded  as  regards 
natural  marriage  ;  and  Schlegel  certainly  is  some- 
what of  the  national-Christian-Socialism  type.  In 
any  case,  here,  too,  Socialism  with  its  more  drastic 
measures  is  more  formidable,  for  even  if  it  would 
respect  the  sexual  group — which  may  be  doubted  in 
view  of  the  artificial  organisation  of  work  in  the 
social  State — yet  the  character  of  the  "family" 
would  quite  disappear  owing  to  the  Socialists'  violent 
interference  with  the  care  and  bringing  up  of  chil- 
dren. It  is  certainly  characteristic  in  this  respect 
that  the  authoritative  Socialists  regard  even  Anarch- 
ism as  merely  a  modern  form  of  the  Manchester 
Liberal  School,  sneering  at  Anarchists  as  "  small 
bourgeoisie,''  and  representing  them  as  quite  harm- 
less against  the  reforms  planned  by  themselves. 

But  whether  it  is  more  or  less  dangerous  need  not 
be  considered,  when  it  is  a  question  of  whether  an 
opinion  is  worth  discussion.  If  an  opinion  contains 
elements  which  are  useful,  serviceable,  or  necessary 
for  the  majority  of  the  members  of  society,  these 
opinions  will  be  realised  in  practice  without  regard 
to  whether  danger  thereby  threatens  or  does  not 
threaten  single  forms  or  arrangements  of  present 
society.  Exceptional  legislation  may  check  criti- 
cism of  unhealthy  or  obsolete  forms  of  society,  but 
cannot  hinder  the  organic  development  of  society 
itself;  for  society  will  then  only  develop  through  a 


Concluding  Remarks  313 

series  of  painful  catastrophes  instead  of  by  a  gradual 
evolution ;  catastrophes  which  are  the  consequence 
of  opinions  which  have  not  had  free  discussion.  It 
would  be  more  than  sad  if  we  had  to  demonstrate 
the  truth  of  these  views  again  to-day,  although  our 
own  age,  or  at  least,  we  Continentals,  seem  in  our 
condemnation  of  Anarchism  to  have  lost  all  calm- 
ness, and  to  have  abandoned  those  principles  of 
toleration  and  Liberalism  of  which  we  are  generally 
so  proud.  It  has  been  rightly  said  that  the  freedom 
of  conscience  must  include  not  only  the  freedom  of 
belief,  but  also  the  freedom  of  unbelief.  In  that 
case  the  right  of  freedom  of  opinions  must  not  be 
confined  merely  to  the  forms  of  the  State:  one 
should  be  equally  free  to  deny  the  State  itself. 
Without  this  extension  of  the  principle,  freedom  of 
thought  is  a  mockery. 

We  therefore  demand  for  the  Anarchist  doctrine, 
as  long  as  it  does  not  incite  to  crime,  the  right  of 
free  discussion  and  the  tolerance  due  to  every  opin- 
ion, quite  without  regard  to  whether  it  is  more 
dangerous,  or  more  probable,  or  more  practicable 
than  any  other  opinion ;  and  this  we  do  not  merely 
from  a  priori  and  academic  reasons,  but  in  the  best 
interests  of  the  community. 

We  consider  the  Anarchist  idea  unrealisable,  just 
as  is  any  other  scheme  based  only  on  speculation ; 
we  think  Proudhon's  picture  of  society  quite  as  Uto- 
pian as  Plato's,  and  certainly  none  the  less  a  product 
of  genius.  Moreover,  we  are  convinced  that  grave 
complications  have  already  arisen  in  society  owing 
to  the  fanatical  pursuit  of  these  Utopian  ideas,  and 


314  Anarchism 

still  greater  ones  will  arise ;  and  yet  we  do  not  be- 
long to  those  who  deplore  the  appearance  of  these 
ideas,  or  who  believe  that  serious  and  permanent 
danger  is  threatened  to  the  development  of  society 
by  the  Anarchist  idea.  This,  indeed,  would  be  the 
place  in  which  to  write  a  chapter  on  the  value  of  the 
error;  but  we  must  leave  this  to  writers  on  ethics, 
and  content  ourselves  with  pointing  out  that  the 
development  of  culture  does  not  depend  mainly 
upon  the  truth  or  falsehood  of  ruling  ideas.  As 
we  have  often  said  in  these  pages  in  our  criticism  of 
the  Anarchists,  life  is  not  merely  the  fulfilment  of 
philosophic  dreams  or  the  embodiment  of  absolute 
truths;  on  the  contrary,  it  can  easily  be  proved 
from  history  that  error  and  superstition  have  rather 
been  the  most  potent  factors  in  human  development. 
When  discussing  Stirner's  views,  we  have  shewn  the 
cardinal  error  that  lies  in  the  conclusion  that  only 
the  absolutely  true  is  useful  and  admissible  in  prac- 
tice. Certainly,  philosophy  has  taught  us  the  in- 
sufficiency of  all  a  priori  proofs  of  the  truth  of  the 
conception  of  God ;  critical  science  has  shown  us  its 
empirical  origin,  and  taught  us  that  our  ideas  of  the 
soul,  God,  and  the  future  life  have  proceeded  from 
the  most  erroneous  and  crudest  attempts  to, explain 
certain  physiological  and  psychological  phenomena: 
but  even  if  the  conception  of  the  Deity  were  the 
greatest  error  committed  by  mankind,  it  is  yet  in- 
contestable that  this  conception  has  produced  and 
still  produces  the  greatest  blessings  for  mankind. 
We  have  taken  up  this  standpoint  against  the  An- 
archists, and  now  it  may  turn  out  in  their  favour  j 


Concluding  Remarks  315 

for,  if  it  is  not  a  question  of  doing  away  with  the 
State  altogether,  merely  because  (as  Stirner  dis- 
covered, though  he  was  not  the  first  to  do  so)  it  is 
not  sacred,  nor  absolute,  nor  real  in  the  philosophic 
sense,  so  one  need  not  consider  an  idea  absolutely 
worthless,  and  therefore  unworthy  of  discussion 
merely  because  it  arises  from  and  leads  to  errors. 

Anarchism  is  certainly  one  of  the  greatest  errors 
ever  imagined  by  man,  for  it  proceeds  from  assump- 
tions and  leads  to  conclusions  which  entirely  contra- 
dict human  nature  and  the  facts  of  life. 

Nevertheless,  it  also  has  its  purpose  in  social 
evolution,  and  that  not  a  small  one,  however 
frightened  at  this  certain  timid  spirits  may  be. 
What  is  this  mission  ?  In  so  small  a  space  as  is 
now  left  us,  it  is  hard  to  answer  this  without  caus- 
ing misunderstandings  to  arise  on  every  side.  But 
after  what  has  been  said,  it  will  readily  be  perceived 
that  Anarchism  will  be  a  factor  in  overcoming 
Socialism,  if  not  by  Anarchy  yet  at  least  by  freedom. 

A  military  trait  runs  through  the  whole  world; 
the  great  wars  and  conquests  of  the  last  few  decades 
and  present  international  relations  which  compel 
most  European  states  to  keep  their  weapons  always 
ready;  all  this  has  called  forth  a  military  strain  of 
character,  a  necessity  for  defence  based  upon  guard- 
ianship and  compulsory  organisation,  which  is  in- 
creased by  a  similar  need  for  defence  in  the  province 
of  economics,  as  a  consequence  of  previous  economic 
and  social  phenomena.  This  feature  is  seen  in  the 
universal  endeavour  to  increase  the  power  of  the 
State  at  the  expense  of  the  individual,  and  to  solve 


3i6  Anarchism 

economic  problems  in  the  same  way  as  one  organises 
an  army.  State  Socialism,  the  Socialism  of  the 
chair,  and  the  Christian  Social  movement  prove  the 
simultaneity  of  this  characteristic  of  the  age  in  every 
circle  of  modern  society  ;  the  Social  Democratic 
party  merely  represents  the  group  to  whose  im- 
pulse we  must  ascribe  the  fact  of  governments  in- 
cluding Socialism  in  their  programme,  of  professors 
inoculating  young  intelligences  therewith  from  their 
chairs,  of  Rome  eagerly  seizing  it  as  a  welcome  in- 
strument wherewith  to  revive  her  faded  popularity; 
and  the  fact  of  politicians,  who  still  call  themselves 
liberal,  giving  up,  often  without  a  struggle,  one 
position  after  the  other  in  the  defence  of  economic 
freedom. 

We  will  not  go  so  far  as  to  brand  every  concession 
to  the  Socialist  spirit  of  our  time  as  blamable  and 
harmful.  After  almost  a  century  of  continually  in- 
creasing economic  freedom,  after  the  old  form  of 
society,  with  its  ranks  and  institutions,  has  been 
completly  broken  up  by  Liberalism,  an  increase  of 
social  discipline,  a  rallying  of  mankind  round  new 
social  standpoints,  is  perfectly  natural.  But  it  is 
just  as  natural  that  evolution  will  not  be  able  to 
proceed  in  the  one-sided  direction  begun  by  Social- 
ism. Already  the  most  unpleasant  phenomena  are 
visible.  The  power  of  the  State  profits  most  of  all 
by  the  Socialist  movement,  which  it  combats  as 
Social  Democracy ;  the  rights  of  the  individual  re- 
tire to  the  background;  in  the  "  industrial  army," 
as  in  the  military  force,  the  individual  is  only  a 
number,  a  unit;  the  sense  of  freedom  has  almost 


Concluding  Remarks  317 

disappeared  from  our  age.  Freedom  in  its  significa- 
tion as  to  culture  and  civilisation  is  now  completely 
misunderstood  and  underrated,  and  even  considered 
an  idle  dream.  But  the  gloomiest  feature  of  Social- 
ism is  a  renaissance  of  the  religiose  spirit  and  all  the 
disadvantages  it  entails.  The  religiose  attitude,  as  I 
have  shown  elsewhere,'  is  connected  with  an  inclina- 
tion for  tutelage,  and  places  the  individual  in  quite 
a  secondary  position.  In  an  age  when  the  weak  are 
only  too  surely  convinced  of  the  impossibility  of 
maintaining  themselves  in  the  midst  of  the  social 
whirlwind,  when  everyone  seeks  to  join  some  com- 
munity or  society,  it  is  easy  to  make  religious  pro- 
selytes. People  mostly  console  a  nation  that  has  a 
low  position  in  the  economic  scale  with  religion,  as 
we  console  the  sick.  To  those  who  suffer  so  bitterly 
from  the  inequality  of  power  and  wealth  in  our 
social  system,  there  is  shown  a  prospect  of  a  future 
eternal  recompense ;  and  those  who  are  continually 
seeking  the  support  of  some  power  higher  than 
themselves  are  referred  to  the  Highest  Power  of  all. 
That  always  convinces  them.  The  Socialist  and  the 
religious  view  of  the  world  are  one  and  the  same ; 
the  former  is  the  religion  of  the  absolute,  infallible, 
all-mighty,  and  ever-present  State.  The  reawaken- 
ing of  the  religious  spirit  simultaneously  with  the 
growth  of  Socialist  parties  is  no  mere  chance. 
Socialism  has  slipped  on  the  cowl  and  cassock  with 
the  greatest  ease,  and  we  have  every  reason  to  be- 
lieve that  this  sad  companionship  is  by  no  means 

'  Mysticismus,  Pietismus,  Anii-Semitismus,  am  Ende  des  XlXten 
yahrhunderts,  p.  5,  foil.     Wien,  1894. 


3i8  Anarchism 

ended ;  the  regard  for  personal  freedom  will  decrease 
more  and  more ;  the  tendency  towards  authority  and 
religion  will  increase ;  the  comprehension  of  purely 
mental  effort  will  continue  to  disappear  in  propor- 
tion as  society  endeavours  to  transform  itself  into 
an  industrial  barrack.  Whether  the  end  of  it  all 
will  be  the  Social  Democratic  popular  State,  or  the 
Socialist  Absolute  Monarchy,  matters  but  little.  In 
any  case,  before  things  reach  this  point,  a  counter- 
acting tendency  will  make  iself  felt  from  the  needs 
of  the  people,  which  will  endeavour  to  force  evolu- 
tion back  into  the  opposite  path.  The  old  implac- 
able struggle  between  the  Gironde  and  the  Mountain 
will  again  be  renewed ;  and  the  impulse  in  this  con- 
test of  the  future  will  come  from  Anarchism,  which 
is  already  preparing  and  sharpening  the  weapons  for 
it.  That  Socialism  will  be  overthrown  by  the  in- 
troduction of  Anarchism  we  do  not  believe ;  but  the 
conquest  will  be  won  under  the  banner  of  individual 
freedom.  The  centralising  tendency  and  the  coer- 
cive character  of  the  system  of  doing  everything  in 
common,  without  which  Socialism  cannot  have  the 
least  success,  will  naturally  and  necessarily  be  re- 
placed by  Federalism  and  free  association.  In  these 
two  distinctive  features  of  a  future  reaction  against 
a  Socialism  that  would  turn  everything  into  one 
vast  army,  we  recognise  those  two  demands  of 
theoretical  Anarchism  which  are  capable  of  realisa- 
tion, and  capable  of  it  because  they  are  not  dogmas, 
like  absolute  freedom,  but  only  methods. 

Thus  it  appears  not  a  priori  but  a  posteriori,  that 
the  Anarchist  theory  must  not  be  considered  as  ab- 


Concluding  Remarks  3^9 

solutely  worthless  because  in  itself  it  is  an  error  and 
in  its  main  demand  is  impracticable.  Our  opinion 
is  that  it  contains  at  least  as  many  useful  elements 
as  Socialism ;  and  if  to-day  governments,  men  of 
learning,  and  even  bishops  proceed  without  alarm 
upon  the  path  of  Socialism,  then  a  discussion  of 
Anarchist  theory  should  not  be  so  coolly  waved  aside. 


But  it  is  entirely  different  as  regards  the  criminal 
propaganda  of  action.  If  Anarchists  wish  to  spread 
their  opinions  abroad,  there  are  quite  sufficient 
means  for  doing  so  in  civilised  society.  No  one 
can  be  allowed  the  right  of  giving  a  sanguinary 
advertisement  to  his  views  by  the  murder  of  in- 
nocent visitors  to  a  caf6  or  a  theatre ;  still  less  have 
Anarchists  the  right,  when  they  appeal  to  force,  to 
complain  if  force  is  used  against  them. 

It  is  perfectly  fair  that  the  State  should  proceed 
against  criminal  propaganda  by  legal  measures,  and 
that  Anarchist  criminals  should  suffer  for  their  action, 
the  punishment  which  a  country  inflicts  even  if  it 
be  the  death  penalty.  There  is  no  difference  of  opin- 
ion '  as  regards  this  view  except  among  Anarchists 
themselves,  who  arrogate  to  themselves  the  right  to 
kill,  but  deny  it  to  the  State.  There  remain  only 
two  points  that  we  might  add. 

'  The  opinion  which  would  relegate  Anarchist  criminals  to  the 
madhouse  instead  of  to  the  guillotine  deserves  mention.  In  this  con- 
nection, in  spite  of  Neo-Buddhist  peculiarities,  the  little  work  An- 
archismus  und  Seine  Heilung,  by  Emanuel  (Leipsic,  1894),  gives 
fresh  points  of  view. 


320  Anarchism 

First  of  all,  exceptional  legislation  should  be 
avoided.  It  is  in  no  way  justified.  Just  as  the 
motive  of  Anarchism  to  any  offence  affords  no  ex- 
tentuating  circumstances,  so,  too,  it  should  not  make 
matters  worse.  Secondly,  we  should  not  indulge  in 
the  vain  hope  that  Anarchism  itself,  or  the  criminal 
results  of  it,  can  be  combated  by  mere  condemna- 
tion of  Anarchist  criminals,  however  just  or  unjust 
the  sentence  may  be.  Punishment  appears  to  fan- 
atics who  long  for  the  martyr's  crown,  no  longer  a 
deterrent  but  an  atonement.  In  France  in  less 
than  two  years,  Ravachol,  Henry,  and  Vaillant  were 
guillotined;  but  that  did  not  deter  Caserio  in  the 
least  from  his  mad  act. 

Numerous  Anarchist  crimes  are  to  be  regarded 
merely  as  means  to  indirect  suicide,  a  method  by 
which  those  who  commit  them  may  end  lives 
that  are  a  burden  to  them,  while  they  lack  the 
courage  to  commit  suicide  directly.  Lombroso, 
Krafft,  Ebbing,  and  others  cite  a  long  list  of  poli- 
tical criminals  who  must  certainly  be  regarded  as 
such  indirect  suicides. 

We  will  not  enter  the  controversial  province  of 
criminal  pathology,  although  it  seems  certain  that 
in  the  criminal  deeds  of  the  Anarchism  of  action 
a  large  share  is  taken  by  persons  pathologically  dis- 
eased or  mentally  affected.  For  these  also  punish- 
ment loses  its  deterrent  effect.  Taken  all  in  all, 
one  cannot  expect  any  other  result  from  the  pun- 
ishment of  Anarchist  criminals,  except  the  moral 
one  of  having  defended  the  rights  of  society.  On 
the  other  hand,  the  Anarchists  regard  the  justifi- 


Concluding  Remarks  321 

cation  of  one  of  their  own  party  as  the  strongest 
means  of  propaganda,  and  it  cannot  be  denied  that 
the  Ravachol  cult  resulting  from  the  execution  of 
that  common  criminal,  Ravachol,  caused  a  consider- 
able accession  of  strength  to  Communist  Anarch- 
ism. The  State  cannot,  of  course,  allow  itself  to 
look  on  at  Anarchist  crimes  and  "  to  shorten  its 
arm  " ;  but  it  must  not  delude  itself  that  it  will  re- 
move such  crime  or  stop  the  Anarchist  movement 
by  means  of  the  guillotine. 

Does  this  mean  that  society  is  helpless  in  face  of 
Anarchism  ?  It  is,  if  it  possesses  only  force  to  sup- 
press and  not  the  power  to  convince ;  if  society  is 
only  held  together  by  compulsion,  as  the  present 
State  partly  is,  and  the  Socialist  State  would  be  still 
more,  and  threatens  to  fall  to  pieces  if  the  apparatus 
of  compulsion  were  given  up;  if  the  State,  instead 
of  trying  to  redress  the  unfortunately  unalterable 
natural  inequality  of  its  members,  only  intensifies 
them  by  legalising  all  kinds  of  new  inequalities,  and 
if  it  regards  its  institutions,  and  especially  the  law, 
as  instruments  for  the  unalterable  conservation  of 
all  present  forms  of  society  with  all  their  imperfec- 
tions and  injustices.  If  right  is  done,  and  right  is 
uttered  arbitrarily,  in  a  partisan  and  protectionist 
method;  if  equality  before  the  law  is  disregarded 
by  those  who  are  called  to  defend  the  law ;  if  belief 
in  the  reliability  of  the  indispensable  institutions  of 
authority  is  lightly  shaken  by  these  very  institutions 
themselves,  then  it  is  no  wonder  if  men  despair  of 
the  capability  of  the  State  to  practice  or  to  maintain 
right ;  and  if  the  masses,  always  ready  to  generalise, 


322  Anarchism 

deny  right,  law,  State,  and  authority  together.  We 
have  already  pointed  out  repeatedly  that  Anarchism 
cannot  be  explained  by  pauperism  alone.  Pauper- 
ism justifies  Socialism;  but  this  movement  against 
authority,  which  certainly  does  not  bear  in  all  cases 
the  name  of  Anarchism,  but  which  is  to-day  more 
widely  spread  than  is  often  imagined,  can  only  be 
explained  by  a  confused  mass  of  injustice  and  wrong- 
doing, of  which  the  bourgeois  State  is  daily  and 
hourly  guilty  towards  the  weak. 

The  average  man  does  not  much  mind  his  rich 
fellow-man  riding  in  his  carriage  while  he  him- 
self cannot  even  pay  his  tram  fare  ;  but  that  he 
should  be  abandoned  by  society  to  every  chance 
official  of  justice,  as  a  prey  that  has  no  rights, 
while  justice  often  falters  anxiously  before  those 
who  are  shielded  by  coats  of  arms  and  titles, — that 
makes  his  blood  boil,  and  causes  him  to  seek  the 
origin  of  this  injustice  in  the  institution  itself  in- 
stead of  in  the  way  it  works.  How  many  Anarch- 
ists have  become  so  merely  because  they  were 
treated  as  common  criminals  when  they  happened 
to  have  the  misfortune  to  be  suspected  of  Anarch- 
ism ?  How  many  became  Anarchists  because  they 
were  outlawed  by  society  on  account  of  free  and 
liberal  views  ? 

Anarchism  may  be  defined  etiologically  as  disbe- 
lief in  the  suitability  of  constituted  society.  With 
such  views  there  would  be  only  one  way  in  which 
we  could  cut  the  ground  from  under  the  Anarchists' 
feet.  Society  must  anxiously  watch  that  no  one 
should  have  reason  to  doubt  its  intention  of  letting 


Concluding  Remarks  323 

justice  have  free  sway,  but  must  raise  up  the  de- 
spairing, and  by  all  means  in  its  power  lead  them 
back  to  their  lost  faith  in  society.  A  movement 
like  Anarchism  cannot  be  conquered  by  force  and 
injustice,  but  only  by  justice  and  freedom. 


THE   END. 


SOUND  MONEY. 

THE  SILVER  SITUATION  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES.  By 
F,  W.  Taussig,  LL.B.,  Ph.D.,  Professor  of  Political  Economy  in 
Harvard  University;  author  of  "The  Tariff  History  of  the  United 
States. "  (No,  74  in  the  Questions  of  the  Day  Series.)  Second  Edition. 
Revised  and  enlarged.     8vo,  cloth $75 

"  Professor  Taussig  is  already  well  known  by  his  admirable  |  History  of  the  United 
States  Tariff '  ;  and  at  a  time  when  currency  problems  are  attracting  attention  in  Europe, 
Asia,  and  America,  the  appearance  of  a  treatise  from  his  pen  on  the  history  of  silver  in 
the  United  States  during  the  last  decade  is  peculiarly  opportune." — London  Times. 

"  We  do  not  hesitate  to  say  that  this  book  is  in  all  respects  as  excellent  as  it  is  oppor- 
tune. It  is  extremely  concise  in  statement,  and  deserves  to  be  read  by  the  learned  as  well 
as  by  the  ignorant,  wbUe  the  times  should  insure  it  the  widest  circulation." — New  York 
Evening  Post. 

THE  QUESTION  OF  SILVER.  By  Louis  E.  Ehrich  (of  Colo- 
rado). (Questions  of  the  Day  Series,  No.  70.)  New  and  revised  edi. 
tion,  with  statistics  brought  down  to  date.  i2mo,  paper,  40  cents  ; 
cloth $    75 

"  The  author  has  incorporated  much  valuable  historical  information  in  the_ essay  on 
silver  and  a  subsequent  reply  to  his  critics,  and  all  who  wish  to  study  the  subject  will  do  well 
to  possess  themselves  of  the  work,  which  will  prove  highly  rewarding  to  the  reader." — 
Commercial  Advertiser ,  New  York. 

THE  CURRENCY  AND  THE  BANKING  LAW  OF  CANADA. 
Considered  with  Reference  to  Currency  Reform  in  the  United  States. 
By  William  C.  Cornwell,  President  of  the  City  Bank  of  Buffalo. 
8vo,  paper $    75 

"  One  of  the  clearest  expositions  of  the  Dominion  law  with  reference  to  its  bearing  on 
Currency  Reform  that  we  have  yet  seen." — The  Financier. 

"  A  very  valuable  volume.  It  will  undoubtedly  prove  to  be  an  effective  contribution 
to  the  campaign  of  currency  education." — Buffalo  Courier. 

A  SOUND  CURRENCY   AND   BANKING  SYSTEM:    HOW 

IT  MAY  BE  SECURED.    By  Allen  Ripley  Foote,  author  of 

"The  Law  of  Incorporated  Companies  Operating  under  Municipal 

Franchises,"  etc.     (No.  81  in  the  Questions  of  the  Day  Series.)     8vo, 

cloth $     75 

"  He  attributes  the  depression  in  business  to  the  ignorance  of  the  people  on  monetary 
questions.  .  .  .  Mr.  Foote's  arguments  are  logical,  and  the  whole  discussion  shows  a 
wide  knowledge  of  all  monetary  questions.  It  is  to  De  hoped  that  our  troubles  may  be 
solved  in  the  simple  way  which  Mr.  Foote  points  out." — Detroit  Free  Press. 

A  HISTORY  OF  MODERN  BANKS  OF  ISSUE.  With  an  Ac- 
count of  the  Economic  Crises  of  the  Present  Century.  By  Charles  A. 
CONANT.     8vo $3  00 

"We  can  only  express  our  hearty  appreciation  of  the  book  as  a  whole.  It  is  ex- 
tremely interesting.  It  cannot  but  be  useful,  and  to  us  it  is  very  cheering.  Mr.  Conant's 
book,  from  beginning  to  end,  is  a  proof  that  sound  currency  is  evolved  necessarily  from 
the  progress  of  an  industrial  and  commercial  people.  We  have  unhesitating,  unfaltering 
faith  in  the  progress  of  the  people  of  our  country  in  industry  and  commerce,  and  that 
sound  currency  will  therefrom  be  evolved." — N.  V.  Times. 


G.  P.  PUTNAM'S  SONS 

new   YORK  AND  LONDON 


INTERNATIONAL  RELATIONS. 


AMERICA  AND  EUROPE.     A  Study  of  International  Relations. 
I. — The  United  States  and  Great  Britain  :  Their  Truk 
Governmental  and  Commercial  Relations.     By  David 
A.  Wells. 
II. — The  Monroe  Doctrine.      By  Edward  J.   Phelps,  late 
Minister  to  Great  Britain. 
III. — Arbitration    in    International    Disputes.       By   Carl 
Schurz. 

(No.  87  in  the  "  Questions  of  the  Day  "  Series.) 
Together,  i  vol.  8vo,  75  cents. 
"  This  is  an  extremely  interesting  book,  a  book  which  should  make  for  peace." 

COMPARATIVE  ADMINISTRATIVE  LAW.  An  Analysis  of 
the  Administrative  System,  National  and  Local,  of  the  United  States, 
England,  France,  and  Germany.  By  Frank  J.  Goodnow,  Professor  of 
Administrative  Law  in  the  University  Faculty  of  Political  Science, 
Columbia  College  in  the  City  of  New  York.  Two  volumes,  Svo 
(each  complete  in  itself,  with  index),  price  per  volume,  $2.50. 
Volume  I. — Organization.     Volume  II. — Legal  Relations, 

_"A  work  of  great  learning  and  profound  research  .  .  .  remarkable  alike  for  an- 
alytical power  and  lucidity  of  method  .  .  .  unique  and  of  permanent  excellence.— 
Nrw  York  Tribune. 

OUTLINES  or  ROMAN  LAW.  Comprising  its  Historical  Growth 
and  General  Principles.    By  William  C.  Morey,  Ph.D.    i2mo,  $1.75 

"  The  work  possesses  more  than  ordinary  interest,  for  it  marks  an  epoch  in  American 
legal  literature." — Albany  Laiv  Journal. 

"  The  whole  work  is  executed  with  care  and  accuracy,  and  shows  a  wide  knowledge  of 
modern  scholarship." — Boston  Advertiser. 

THE    FOREIGN    POLICY    OF    GREAT    BRITAIN.      By 

Montague  Burrows,  Professor  of  Modem   History,  University  of 
Oxford.     Svo,  I3.00. 

THE     HISTORICAL     DEVELOPMENT     OF     MODERN 

EUROPE.     From  the  Congress  of  Vienna  to  the  Present  Time.     By 

Charles  M.  Andrews,  Associate  Professor  of  History  in  Bryn  Mawr 

College.     To  be  completed  in  two  volumes.     Sold  separately.     With 

maps.     Svo,  gilt  tops,  per  volume,  $2,50. 

Part  I. — From  1815-1S50. 

Part  II. — From  1850  to  the  Present  Time.     (In  preparation.) 

THE  NICARAGUA  CANAL  AND  THE  MONROE  DOC- 
TRINE. A  Political  History  of  the  Various  Projects  of  Interoceanic 
Transit  across  the  American  Isthmus,  with  Special  Reference  to  the 
Nicaragua  Canal,  and  the  Attitude  of  the  United  States  Government 
Thereto.  By  Lindley  M.  Keasbey,  Associate  Professor  of  Political 
Science,  Bryn  Mawr  College.     With  maps.     8vo. 

INTERNATIONAL  LAW.  A  simple  statement  of  its  Principles. 
By  Herbert  Wolcott  Bowen,  United  States  Consul-General  at 
Barcelona,  Spain.     i2mo. 


G.  P.  PUTNAM'S  SONS,  New  York  and  London. 


UC  SOUTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACjUT^ 


HI,,. 

A     000  754  128     7 


